The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Manuscripts
and Online Data Base

Overview of Findings
by the Authors

Sponsored by the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Abuse
Editor-in-Chief: John Hamel, LCSW

Springer Publishing Company, New York, NY

November, 20121

Table of Contents
Page
Introduction

4

Topic 1: Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships - Part 1:
Rates of Male and Female Victimization
Sarah Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin Telford& Martin S. Fiebert

5Topic 2: Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships - Part 2:
Rates of Male and Female Perpetration
Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford& Martin S. Fiebert

6

Topic 3: Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner
Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A
Comprehensive Review
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Tiffany A. Misra, Candice Selwyn, &Martin L. Rohling

8

Topic 4: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence
Deborah M. Capaldi, Naomi B. Knoble, Joann Wu Shortt, and Hyoun K. Kim

10Topic 5: Prevalence of Partner Abuse: Rates of Emotional Abuse and Control
Michelle Mohr Carney and John R. Barner

12

Topic 6: Partner Abuse in Ethnic Minority and LGBT Populations
Carolyn West

15

Topic 7: The Combined and Independent Impact of Witnessed Interparental
Violence and Child Maltreatment
K. Watson MacDonnel

17

Topic 8: Impact of Witnessed Parental Conflict/Emotional Abuse on Children
and Families
Melissa Sturge-Apple, Michael A. Skibo and Patrick Davies

19

Topic 9: The Impact and Consequences of Partner Abuse on Partners

212Erika Lawrence, Rosaura Orengo, Amie Langer, and Rebecca L. Brock
Topic 10: Motivations for Men and Women's Intimate Partner Violence
Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Adrianne McCullars

24

Topic 11: The Crime Control Effects of Criminal Justice Sanctions for Intimate
Partner Violence
Christopher Maxwell & Joel Garner

30

Topic 12: Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Criminal Justice Decision
Making in Intimate Partner Violence Cases
Stan Shernock and Brenda Russell

31

Topic 13: Effectiveness, Victim Safety, Characteristics and Enforcement ofProtective Orders
Brenda Russell

33

Topic 14: Partner Abuse Worldwide
Esteban Esquivel-Santovena, Teri Lambert and John Hamel

35

Topic 15: Risk Assessment In Intimate Partner Violence: A Review ofContemporary Approaches
Tonia Nicholls, Michelle Pritchard, Kim Reeves, and Ed Hilterman

39

Topic 16: Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Efforts for Intimate Partner Violence
Daniel J. Whitaker, Christopher M. Murphy, Christopher I. Eckhardt,
Amanda E. Hodges and Melissa Cowart

43

Topic 17: The Effectiveness of Intervention Programs for Perpetrators and Victimsof Intimate Partner Violence
Christopher I. Eckhardt, Christopher M. Murphy, Daniel J. Whitaker,
Joel Sprunger, Rita Dykstra, and Kim Woodard

44

About the Authors

47

3

Introduction
Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented andpoliticized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring
together in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge
about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both byresearchers and the general public. In March, 2010, the Senior Editor of Partner Abuse 1
recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the U.K. to conduct anextensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. Researchers
were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard,
widely-used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies
relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency,
the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals
after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify
exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing
summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.
In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20
universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing
the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and approximately 2,000 weresummarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings
on each of the topics, for a total of 2,300+ pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues ofPartner Abuse published between April, 2012 and April, 2013. All conclusions, including theextent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictlyon the data collected. In this article, key findings are summarized from each of the 17 topic
areas. The reader, however, is encouraged to access the full manuscripts. To do so, please go to
the Partner Abuse website, at www.springerpub.com/pa, and click on the “subscriptions” link.

Given the large volume of summarized studies, it was not possible for the publishedmanuscripts to include tables containing the summarized studies. All of the tables,
therefore, are available online. This online document is a unique contribution todomestic violence research, intervention and policy - providing the most comprehensive
single data set on domestic violence available in one convenient location, free of charge
to the public. To access it, you may go to the Partner Abuse website. On the home page,under “Online Resources,” click on “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Free
Online Data Base”

1

John Hamel, LCSW conceived and supervised the project. The journal’s former Associate Editors, Jennifer
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D., and Denise Hines, Ph.D., provided editorial assistance.

4Overview of Findings#1 Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:
Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization
Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert
148 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp.140-169
Studies were included in the current review if they met three broad inclusion criteria.
First, they needed to present empirical data regarding the prevalence of physical IPV from theperspective of the victim (see Part 2 for perpetration rates). Second, the IPV must have occurred
within the context of a heterosexual intimate relationship. Third, articles were excluded if theyreported the findings of studies in which participants were sampled from an identified populationof IPV victims, such as women staying at a domestic violence shelter. Literature searches
undertaken in three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) followed by screeningof titles and abstracts, as well as elimination of replicates, led to retrieval of 750 articles
published between 2000 and 2010 for further analysis. Data were extracted regarding
measurement timeframe and instrument, and sample details. Results then were summarized bystudy and grouped according to sample type: population-based, community, university orcollege, middle or high school, clinical, and justice or legal samples. Unweighted prevalence
estimates were calculated for female and male victimization overall and by sample type, country,
measurement timeframe, and measurement approach, to the extent possible.
Our final sample included 249 articles that reported 543 rates of physical IPV
victimization in our review: 158 articles reported 318 rates for women, six articles reported eightrates for men, and 85 articles reported 217 rates for both men and women. There were 52
population-based studies, 36 studies of community samples, 26 studies of university or college
samples, 38 studies of middle or high school students, three studies of high school and university
students, 80 studies of clinical samples, and 14 studies of justice or legal samples. The majorityof articles (85.5%, k = 213) reported findings of studies conducted in the U.S. Sample sizes
ranged widely from N = 42 to N = 134,955, with a mean of 4,308.24 (SD = 14,912.49), medianof 791, and mode of 120 participants per study. Studies varied in their operational definition andmeasurement of IPV, though a majority (47.4%, k = 118) of studies reported prevalence rates
measured using items or scales drawn from the Conflict Tactic Scale family of instruments.
Overall, results indicated that physical IPV victimization is prominent among men andwomen in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately
one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an
intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%. However, for both
men and women, prevalence rates ranged widely from 0% to 99%. Physical IPV victimization
was reported by approximately one-third (33.6%) of individuals in their lifetime and one-fifth(19.2%) of individuals in the year prior to the study.

5

Whether prevalence estimates were higher for male or female physical IPV victimization
fluctuated as a function of sample type, measurement timeframe, and study location. For
example, in large population studies, studies of community samples, university or college
samples, and clinical samples, pooled prevalence was higher among women than men, but acrossstudies of middle or high school students and justice or legal samples, pooled prevalence washigher among men than women (though only one study examined male victimization in a justiceor legal sample). Lifetime rates generally were higher among women than men, whereas past
year prevalence was slightly higher among men than women. We also found differences bycountry. For instance, in studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada, pooled prevalence washigher among women than men whereas in studies conducted in the U.K., New Zealand, andSouth Africa, pooled prevalence rates were higher among men than women. Taken together,results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of IPV among men
and women.
This comprehensive review of the current state of the field demonstrates the diversity ofvictims who experience physical IPV and documents the need for gender-inclusive
responsiveness to this wide-ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few
services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests
a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes. Additionally, the highrates of physical IPV victimization among middle or high school students (or other similar age
youth), as well as among university and college students, highlights the need for school-based
IPV prevention and intervention efforts.
Instead of victim sex, the methodological differences across studies may be the mostimportant sources of variability affecting estimates of prevalence. Though many studies used
standardized assessment instruments, a considerable proportion used other, unvalidated
approaches. Researchers also differed in whether sexual violence was included in their definitionof IPV. Finally, many studies reported lifetime and past year prevalence rates, while others
combined rates of current or past year victimization, or used different timeframes altogether.
Thus, future research efforts need to be directed at standardizing the measurement of IPV so thatdata can be compared across studies, sample types and countries.
#2 Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:
Part 2. Rates of Male and Female Perpetration
Sarah L. Desmarais, Kim A. Reeves, Tonia L. Nicholls, Robin P. Telford, & Martin S. Fiebert
96 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp. 170-198
Our final sample included 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV
perpetration: 25 articles reported 34 rates for male perpetration, 14 articles reported 24 rates forfemale perpetration, and 72 articles reported 214 rates for both men and women. There were 19
population-based studies, 24 studies of smaller community samples, 17 studies of middle andhigh school students or adolescents, 30 studies of university and college students or young
6

adults, and 21 studies of clinical samples. The majority of articles (85.6%, k = 95) reported
findings of studies conducted in the United States. Sample sizes ranged widely from N = 53 to N
= 89,601, with a mean of 2,340.91 (SD = 8,748.44), median of 670, and mode of 356 participants
per study. Studies varied in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, though almost
three-quarters of studies (73.0%, k = 81) reported prevalence rates measured using the CTS,
CTS2, or items or scales drawn from the CTS instruments.
Findings underscore the pervasiveness of physical violence in heterosexual relationships.
Across all studies included in this review, approximately one-quarter of participants (25.3%)
reported perpetrating physical IPV. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by approximately
one in four individuals both in their lifetime (24.2%) and in the year prior to the study (25.6%).
Approximately one in five (22.9%) reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or mostrecent relationship. Consistent with prior reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men andwomen generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly rates for women thanfor men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%).
There also was considerable consistency in the rates of physical IPV perpetration acrosscountries, ranging from a pooled estimate of 14.1% for studies conducted in Australia to 31.8%
for studies conducted in New ZealandRates of physical IPV perpetration ranged widely across studies for both men (1.0% to61.6%) and women (2.4% to 68.9%). Much of the variation can be attributed to the highly
diverse sampling methods and study procedures. For instance, studies differed in theiroperational definitions of physical IPV perpetration and in their reporting of minor and/or severe
IPV. Studies also varied in their measurement timeframes; some reported lifetime and/or past
year prevalence rates, others reported rates for the current or most recent relationship, and stillothers used different reference periods altogether (e.g., past two months, past six months). Taken
together, results add to a growing body of literature documenting symmetry in rates of physicalIPV perpetration by men and women.
The present review represents a comprehensive summary of the current state of knowledge
regarding physical IPV perpetration among heterosexual men and women in English-speaking,industrialized nations. With similar rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women,
gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings. Of note, however,results of the current review pertain only to the presence or absence, and not the severity orcontext, of perpetration. Thus, rather than perpetuating the debate regarding the comparability ofphysical IPV perpetrated by men and women, findings should be used to support thedevelopment and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by
women in intimate relationships but also recognize how participants’ treatment needs may differ.
Intervention strategies that are both gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive may have the greatest
potential for reducing IPV.
Though most studies included in our review employed a measurement approach based on
the CTS, researchers varied considerably in their sampling and study procedures, their operation
definitions of IPV, and in their reporting of results by severity (e.g., minor vs. severe IPV) or
7

consequences (e.g., any physical IPV vs. IPV that resulted in injury). Future research synthesis
efforts should include systematic coding and analysis across these variables. Moreover, we
compared perpetration rates across rather than within studies; thus, future research should
examine the degree to which there are similarities or differences in victimization andperpetration rates across and within samples. Finally, most studies were conducted in the UnitedStates, limiting cross-national comparisons; thus, future research efforts should focus on building
evidence regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women in other
English-speaking, industrialized countries.
#3 Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence AcrossSamples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Tiffany A. Misra,
Candice Selwyn & Martin L. Rohling
152 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp. 199-230
In the current study, a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted and 50
studies (n = 48 empirical studies; n = 1 meta-analysis; n = 1 book chapter) that reported rates ofbi-directional versus uni-directional violence were uncovered using a variety of search engines
and key terms. Included studies were published in 1990 or later, appeared in peer-reviewed
journals, and contained empirical data. These studies were then categorized by the nature of thesample they assessed as follows: large population samples, smaller community samples,
University/school samples, treatment seeking samples, legal/criminal justice related samples, andsamples assessing the relationships of gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual individuals (GLB). Each tablecontains the rates of bi-directional and uni-directional violence. As reported, among unidirectional violence rates, male-to-female (MFPV) and female-to-male (FMPV) percentages
were included or were derived on the basis of data contained within the article. Also, in thecorresponding publication, specific additional results were calculated to determine the overall
rate of IPV in each sample type. These rates were then weighted by the sample sizes from which
they were derived.
Among epidemiological/population samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported
was 16.3% (22.1% unweighted). Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 57.9% of
the IPV reported was bi-directional. Of the remaining 42.1% that was reported as uni-directional
IPV, 13.8% was MFPV, 28.3% was FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was
2.05 weighted (2.02 unweighted).
Among community samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was 47.0%.
Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 59.6% was bi-directional. Of theremaining 40.4% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 17.5% was MFPV, 22.9% was
FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was 1.30 weighted (1.98 unweighted).
Among school and college samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was
39.2%. Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 51.9% was bi-directional. Of the8remaining 48.1% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 16.2% was MFPV, 31.9% was
FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was 1.96 weighted (2.18 unweighted).
Among legal or female-oriented clinical/treatment seeking samples that were notassociated with the military, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was 70.6%. Using
weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 72.3% was bi-directional. Of the remaining
27.7% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 13.3% was MFPV, 14.4% was FMPV, and theratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was 1.09 weighted (1.07 unweighted).
Finally, among IPV treatment samples within the U.S. Military and at-risk males
samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was 99.9%%. Using weighted averages,
among those reporting IPV, 39.3% was bi-directional. Of the remaining 60.7% that was reported
as uni-directional IPV, 43.4% was MFPV, 17.3% was FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional
FMPV to MFPV was .40 weighted (.33 unweighted).
When using unweighted overall rates of IPV, the samples differed significantly. Followup comparisons revealed that the overall rate of IPV in school samples did not differ
significantly from large population and community samples. All other comparisons of overall
rates of violence revealed significant differences with the epidemiological studies yielding thelowest reported rates of IPV and the legal/criminal justice samples yielding the highest rates.
When examining rates of bi-directional versus unidirectional IPV, the unweighted bi-directional
IPV rates ranged from 49.2% to 69.7% whereas the uni-directional rates ranged from 30.3% to50.4%. Bi-directional IPV is a prevalent phenomenon. These findings held even though theprevalence of violence differed greatly among the samples studied. This robust result suggeststhat the role of women in violent relationships is important to consider, even if all aspects ofwomen’s perpetration of IPV are not symmetrical to men’s perpetration of IPV. Moreover,bidirectional IPV was the most common type of violence for all sample types except thelegal/treatment seeking samples of military or at-risk men. However, even among this sample
type the uni-directional rate was only slightly higher as compared to the rate of bi-directional
violence (50.4% vs. 49.2%, respectively). This again suggests that clinicians and researchers inall settings should be routinely assessing for both perpetration and victimization.
Furthermore, statistical analyses indicated that among the five sample types, theunweighted percentages of bi-directional as compared to uni-directional IPV did not differ
significantly. Thus, rates of uni-directional and bi-directional IPV were similar across all fivesample types. However, significant differences did emerge within the group of unidirectional
IPV perpetrators, such that a significantly higher rate of uni-directional MFPV (38%
unweighted) and a significantly lower rate of FMPV (12.4% unweighted) was found among themilitary treatment/legal samples of males as compared to all other sample types. Post hoc
analyses revealed that these rates did not differ from the female-oriented treatment/legal samples.
But, in female-oriented treatment/legal samples, the rate of FMPV (15.7% unweighted) was
significantly lower as compared to the rate of FMPV in every other sample type. Thus, the ratioof uni-directional female-to-male (FMPV) compared to male-to-female (MFPV) IPV differedsignificantly among samples with higher rates of female-perpetrated unidirectional violence
9found in four of the five sample types considered. A higher ratio of male-to-female
unidirectional violence was only found in criminal justice/legal studies that relied on police
reports of IPV perpetration and/or in samples drawn from the U.S. military. Competing
explanations for the differing gender-based ratios were offered in the discussion section of the
published manuscript. These considerations need to be systematically varied and tested
empirically in order to fully understand differences in the reported expression of IPV acrosssamples and settings.
In further exploratory analyses, differences in the extent of bi-directionality in theexpression of IPV were not found across samples of gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual individuals;
however, among a limited number of studies, rates of bi-directional violence were found to varysignificantly by race/ethnicity. Specifically, only 50.9% of IPV was bi-directional according toWhite reporters, as compared to 49.0% among Hispanic reporters, and 61.8% among Black
reporters. Significantly different ratios of FMPV to MFPV were also obtained across the ethnic
groups such that the ratio was 2.27 for Black reporters, 2.26 for White reporters, and 1.34 for
Hispanic reporters. However, it must be noted that these ratios differ dramatically from thosereported above when the sample is drawn from the military (0.61 for Black reporters, 0.50 for
White reporters, and 0.00 for Hispanic reporters). These findings warrant additional
investigation.
In conclusion, our results demonstrate the amount of overall IPV differed significantly
among samples, but the percent that was categorized as bi-directional did not. This indicates thatbi-directional violence is a common IPV pattern and suggests that women play a larger role in
the occurrence of IPV than previously thought. Such findings have considerable implications forassessment, legal, intervention, and preventive efforts. It is suggested that if one resolution of thegender symmetry/asymmetry debate is to argue that there are subtypes of male and female
intimate partner violence perpetrators, or that there are different patterns of violence amongst
relationships characterized by IPV (Johnson, 2005; Johnson, 2006), researchers and clinicians
will need to work to together to determine how to reliably and meaningfully make these
determinations in ways that will facilitate our ability to effectively prevent and treat all types of
IPV.
# 4 A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence
Deborah M. Capaldi, Naomi B. Knoble, Joann Wu Shortt, and Hyoun K. Kim
297 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 2 (2012), pp. 231-280.
From a dynamic developmental systems perspective, IPV in couples is conceptualized as
an interactional behavior that is responsive to the conjoint developmental characteristics andbehaviors of each partner, as well as contextual factors and relationship influences and processes.
Guided by this perspective, risk factors were organized by: (a) contextual characteristics ofpartners such as demographic factors (age, gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity,
acculturation, stress), neighborhood and community factors, school context factors; (b)10developmental characteristics and behaviors of the partners such as family factors (family-oforigin exposure to IPV violence, experience of child abuse, parenting), peer associations andinfluences (association with deviant peers, social and emotional support), psychological andbehavioral factors (conduct problems/antisocial behavior, anger, hostility, personality disorders,
depression, suicide attempts, substance use), cognitive factors (hostile attributions, attitudes, andbeliefs); and (c) relationship influences and interactional patterns (marital/relationship status,
relationship discord, relationship satisfaction, attachment, negative emotionality, jealousy).
Study inclusion criteria were as follows: articles published in a peer-reviewed journal thatexamined one or more risk factors for partner aggression, recruitment of a representative
community sample or a clinical sample with a control-group comparison and a response rate of
50% or greater, use of a physical or sexual violence outcome measure (not solely a psychologicalaggression measure), and control of confounding factors in the analyses. A total of 228 articles
were included in the review – 170 articles with adult samples over age 18 years; and 58 articles
with adolescent samples age 18 years or younger. The Conflict Tactics Scale persists as theprimary form of IPV measurement across studies.
In the area of demographic risk factors, younger age, deprivation, including
unemployment and low income, and minority group membership was predictive of IPV. For
Hispanics, being born in the U.S. is a risk factor, but degree of acculturation is not predictive.
Stress, including acculturation stress is predictive of IPV. Findings regarding risk fromneighborhood/community and school context were mixed.
Exposure to violence between parents in the family of origin and experience of childabuse are still much researched risk factors that show evidence of low to moderate risk for IPV
and of mediation by more proximal factors such as antisocial behavior and adult adjustment.
Studies of protective factors included parenting – particularly positive involvement in theadolescent’s life (monitoring, support) and encouragement of nonviolent behavior, which wererelatively robust low-to-moderate predictors of dating violence. In general social support andtangible help are protective for perpetration and victimization
In the realm of social and behavioral risk factors evident in adolescence, involvementwith aggressive peers is a relatively strong predictor of involvement in dating aggression,
whereas higher friendship quality is a protective factor. Regarding risk from psychopathology,
conduct problems or antisocial behavior has emerged consistently as a substantial risk factor forlater IPV involvement for men and women. In contrast, the findings for depressive symptoms
indicate an association that is not robust in multivariate analyses. Depressive symptoms may be astronger risk factor for IPV perpetration for women than for men.
Findings in the area of substance use were particularly interesting. Whereas someevidence was found for an association of alcohol use and IPV, it was of a low magnitude and not
found consistently, especially when controlling for other factors. On the other hand, there wasevidence that there could be a stronger association between drug use and IPV. There was someindication that alcohol use could be a stronger risk factor for women’s than for men’s
perpetration of IPV.
11

Regarding relationship factors, relationship status (e.g., married, cohabiting, separated) isrelated to IPV, with married individuals being at lowest risk and separated women being
particularly vulnerable. Low relationship satisfaction and high discord or conflict are proximal
predictors of IPV, with high discord in particular being a robust predictor.
One notable finding of this review is that regardless of any differences in frequency
and/or severity of engagement in IPV by girls/women and boys/men, overall there are moresimilarities than differences in risk factors. The main areas with indications of gender differenceswere in higher risk for women’s perpetration of IPV associated with internalizing problems andalcohol use.
Eight implications for intervention and policy are drawn from the review. These include
focusing on proven (particularly on malleable) risk factors; raising public awareness of theimportance of risk factors for both men’s and women’s perpetration and victimization; awarenessof risks from internalizing factors and alcohol use for women in particular; increased awarenessof risk contexts such as relationship breakdown; addressing drug use as a risk factor; adding an
IPV prevention component to youth interventions for associated problems such as substance use
and conduct problems; improve couples’ problem-solving and interaction skills to reduce
conflict; start preventive interventions at an early age.
Twelve recommendations are made for future research including areas where increased
understanding is needed, particularly how conflicts escalate to IPV, the interfaces among risk
factors, the roles of drug use, deviant associations, and stress, further understanding of protective
factors and the role of moderators of risk. Regarding study design issues, the need for morestudies based on strong theoretical models, particularly models of dyadic behavior, ishighlighted, along with the need to include both partners in more studies; the importance of
examining the effects of changing partners (break up and re-partnering) on dyadic behavior and
IPV, and the need for studies with stronger methodology within well-designed community or
clinical control studies, including observational methodology. Finally, most studies are of malefemale couples, and more well-designed studies of same-sex couples are needed.
#5 Prevalence of Partner Abuse: Rates of Emotional Abuse and Control
Michelle Mohr Carney and John R. Barner
330 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 3 (2012), pp.286-335
The effort within the social science research literature that seeks to preserve the duality of
typifying IPV as a singular construct while simultaneously delineating behavioral variance has
resulted in two broad, overlapping categorizations - clinical and relational. Clinical studies of
IPV with a view towards psychopathological indicators, behavioral patterns, or genetic
predispositions would tend toward a monolithic conception of IPV, with each sub-strata (e.g.,
stalking behavior, sexual coercion, or emotional aggression) being emblematic of a larger,
internalized propensity to violence. Relational studies tend to view IPV sub-strata “more as adysfunction of the interactional and relational processes of courtship and relationship evolution,
12

rather than a disorder of the individual’s attachment system” (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003, p.
348).
Researchers such as Johnson (2008) and Stark (2007) have advanced such typologicaldelineation under the label of Controlling Coercive Violence (CCV). CCV, which as a model ofboth clinical traits and relational characteristics unites previously disparate sub-strata of violent
or aggressive behaviors under a definitional “pattern of emotionally abusive intimidation,
coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners” (Kelly & Johnson, 2008,
p. 478).
Specifically included in this review are the findings from research relative to prevalence
rates for emotional abuse/control, sexual coercion, stalking, combined physical assaults andemotional abuse/control, sexual coercion and stalking, and controlling/coercive violence or
combined rates of physical and non-physical abuse, what Michael Johnson (2008) now calls"Controlling Coercive Violence" (CCV). Studies included rates for males and females and were
all conducted in industrialized English speaking countries. A differential/deviant case relationalorganizing framework of emotional abuse/control, sexual coercion, and stalking behavior within
Johnson's (2008) schema of CCV was used for summarizing the studies given that theassumptions of CCV are, ostensibly, that these occur WITHIN (and EVOLVE from) a once
normative relational context, namely through increase in incidence or prevalence. A variety ofsearch engines were used to identify empirical work including PsychINFO, WebofScience,
ERIC, EBSCO (Social Work Abstracts; Criminal Justice Abstracts), ProQuest Research (Social
Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts), and Google Scholar.
More than 300 studies were reviewed, 204 studies met the identified criteria and areincluded in the extensive tabular listing of the reviewed research that can be found on-line at thePartner Abuse journal website. Included in the summary tables is the full reference for the study(authors, year, title, and journal information), the sample size of the study, characteristics of thesample (e.g., gender, socio-demographic information, age range), study method and design,
measures used, and resulting conclusions. Studies excluded from this review dealt with nonEnglish speaking populations and had some translation as part of the methodology, wereunrelated to the purview of the current manuscript (animal abuse relative to IPV, etc.), or
covered in other Partner Abuse State of Knowledge summaries.
Notable findings derived from this review are reported for each of the three aspects of
CCV. For emotional abuse, prevalence rates might average around 80%, with 40% of womenand 32% of men reporting expressive aggression (i.e., verbal abuse or emotional violence in
response to some agitating or aggravating circumstance), and 41% of women and 43% of men
reporting some form of coercive control. For sexual coercion, national samples demonstrated thewidest disparity by gender of victim, with 0.2% of men and 4.5% of women endorsing forced
sexual intercourse by a partner. By far the largest selection of highly variable studies, stalking
and obsessive behaviors showed a range from 4.1% to 8% of women and 0.5 to 2% of men in the
United States have been stalked at some time in their life. Women were reported as having asignificantly higher prevalence (7%) of stalking victimization than men (2%). For all types of13

violence except being followed in a way that frightened them, strangers were the most common
perpetrators, as reported in approximately 80% of cases. Overall, intimate stalkers seem tocomprise somewhere between one-third and one half of all stalkers. In stalking involving
obsessive following behaviors, women were most often victimized by men they knew, mostfrequently their current or former intimate partners. Among women who reported repeatedunwanted contact, current (15.9%) and former (32.9%) intimate partners were the perpetrators innearly half of the most recent incidents and the largest subdivision of reports came from college
or university student samples. Within studies of stalking and obsessive behaviors, genderdifferences are much less when all types of obsessive pursuit behaviors are considered, but moreskewed toward female victims when the focus is on stalking
Four broad conclusions can be drawn from this review.
1. As Johnson (2008) contends, there does seem to be two types of IPV, one which
traditionally manifests in physical violence, and another, more nebulous,
multifaceted, or perhaps stochastic type that comports with elements of power,
control and coercion. This review demonstrates that the two types are not, however,altogether conterminous.
2. IPV and CCV behaviors are generally supported by international studies from other
English-speaking nations. None of the CCV sub-strata under review showed marked
variance in the U.K., Australia, Canada, or New Zealand studies contained as part ofthe literature reviewed.
3. Studies of IPV tend to vary, as Spitzberg and Cupach (2003) noted, in theirperspective of combined coercive violence as having a clinical or relational locus.
This can also be clearly evinced in the overlap of studies in this review from one
aspect of CCV behavior and another (i.e., emotional abuse and stalking behavior).
The data reported from single studies seemed to capture elements of both discrete
CCV categories, which, while separately significant to the purposes of this review,complicates the ability to categorize a single study as capturing only one discrete
form of IPV.
4. With regard to emotional and psychological abuse, sexual coercion, and stalking,studies which utilized the same or similar methodologies, instrumentation, andmeasurement reported a much higher variance, as seen with the community-based andclinical studies, than those which diversified the means of obtaining respondent data.
In interview or mixed-methodological studies, variances in prevalence were often
comparable and, in many cases, much higher.
This review highlights the need for increases in reportage, adjudication, and assessments ofprevalence. With regard to policies, advocates, practitioners, and researchers alike must soundthe call for uniform definitions, legislation, and law enforcement standards that specificallyaddress emotional and psychological abuse, sexual coercion, and stalking behaviors. Uniform
policies are the stable basis from which victim-appropriate, empirically rigorous and accurate
prevalence studies are conducted, interventions designed, and programs initiated.
14

Research into the three facets of CCV in this review have uncovered several potential areasof interest for researchers and avenues for further development where only one or a few studies
have been conducted to date, but which reported significant findings. Recommendations forfurther research are grouped in the manuscript according to the CCV category to which they
apply.
#6: Partner Abuse in Ethnic Minority and LGBT Populations
Carolyn M. West, Ph.D.
76 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 3 (2012), pp. 336-357
In the second decade of the 21st century, a growing percentage of the U.S. population has selfidentified as Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black, Asian American, or American
Indian/Alaska Native. In addition, there is a growing recognition of gay, lesbian, bisexual, andtransgendered (GLBT) citizens and their relationships. Consequently, it is imperative that
researchers continue to investigate the differences in the incidence and prevalence of IPV basedon racial/ethnic background and sexual orientation of victims and perpetrators. Accordingly, thegoal of this review is to 1) synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding genderdifferences in rates of physical and psychological IPV prevalence among the four largest
ethnic/racial groups; 2) compare rates of physical and psychological IPV between sexual
minorities and heterosexuals and among subgroups of sexual minorities (gay men, lesbians,bisexuals); 3) summarize correlates and risk factors that are associated with rates of IPV in bothethnic and sexual minorities.
Studies that were published after 1975, appeared in peer-review journals, and met thefollowing criteria are included in this review: (1) present empirical data with statistical analyses
regarding the prevalence of physical IPV and/or psychological aggression/control among
African, Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans and LGBT populations; and (2) assessed andcompared rates of both male-perpetrated and female- perpetrated IPV. Exclusion criteria
included studies that examined gender differences between ethnic groups (e.g., only comparing
rates of IPV between White and Black women or Hispanic and Black men).
A systematic search of the published literature was carried out using a variety of search engines
including PubMed, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete. The review identified 55 studies
that met the criteria (257 fell under the topic and were considered, but were determined to notmeet criteria for inclusion). Included in the summary tables is the full reference for the study(author, year, title, journal information), the sample size, characteristics of the sample (e.g.,sociodemographic information, age), study method and design, measures used, and results(gender differences in prevalence rates and correlates/risk factors). Most of the articles focusedon African Americans, Hispanics, and sexual minorities.
Among African Americans, in earlier national studies researchers discovered higher rates
of male perpetrated violence compared to violence perpetrated by females. In more recent
surveys, psychological aggression was most frequently reported, followed by mutual physical15

IPV. Unidirectional female-to-male partner violence (FMPV) was significantly higher than maleto-female partner violence (MFPV). Regardless of gender, Black couples most often inflicted
and sustained minor or moderate aggression, such as throwing objects, pushing, grabbing, andshoving. Overall, there were no gender differences in rates of psychological and physicalvictimization among Black undergraduates; however, women tended to inflict more dating
violence than men.
Among Hispanic Americans, in general population studies psychological aggression was
most frequently reported, followed by mutual physical aggression. The overall rates of MFPVand FMPV and psychological aggression were comparable, and physical aggression primarily
took the form of minor aggression. Physical victimization and perpetration, severe acts ofphysical aggression, and psychological aggression did not vary based on gender in a Hispanic
college sample. Female migrant farm workers reported more IPV than their male counterparts,
non-migratory farm workers and Mexican American community members.
Only one general population study in this sample focused on Asian Americans.
Reciprocal violence, which accounted for one-third of the aggression, was most frequently
reported and comparable rates of women and men reported minor physical victimization andperpetration. Vietnamese women and men reported the lowest rates of IPV. In contrast, acommunity sample found higher rates of IPV among Vietnamese women and men. However,overall, lifetime and past year rates of victimization did not vary by gender in community orcollege samples.
Three community samples focused on IPV among American Indians. Using a one-item
measure of IPV, researchers discovered very low, nonsignificant rates of victimization. In alarger sample of six Native American tribes, women reported higher rates than men, almost onehalf vs. one-third, respectively. In addition, another sample found that more Native American
women required medical attention due to their injuries and were more likely to use weapons in
self-defense against an abusive partner.
My second objective of this review was to compare rates of physical and psychological
IPV between sexual minorities and heterosexuals and among subgroups of sexual minorities (gaymen, lesbians, bisexual men and women). In most cases, respondents who reported a history ofsame-sex cohabitation and those who identified as sexual minorities reported higher rates of IPVthan those who reported only a history of opposite-sex cohabitation and those who identified asheterosexual. Regarding sexual minority subgroup differences, the findings were inconsistent.
Some studies found no significant differences across sexual orientation, while another study
found that lesbians experienced higher rates of IPV than gay men. Bisexuals also appear to be atrisk for IPV and rates of victimization among transgendered populations has largely been
unexamined in the literature.
The final objective of this review was to identify correlates and risk factors of IPV among
ethnic and sexual minorities. Substance abuse and use, marginalized socioeconomic status in theform of family and neighborhood poverty, exposure to violence during childhood as a witness or
victim of violence in the family of origin are all factors that have been consistently linked to16

elevated rates of intimate partner assaults. Associations also have been found between level ofacculturation and minority stress in the form of internalized homophobia and frequency of
discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the complex association among thesevariables is less clear across racial groups and sexual orientation.
These findings should be understood in the context of some limitations. First, most of thestudies in this review focused on African Americans and Hispanics, while the research on Asian
Americans and Native Americans remain sparse. Second, prevalence rates and correlates/ risk
factors of IPV were primarily based on two general population surveys. Although these studies
were methodologically strong, the typical respondents were married individual and couples intheir mid-40s, populations that are generally at lower risk of IPV. Third, the majority of thestudies used the Conflict Tactics Scales. Therefore, there was limited information about
frequency of aggression. Moreover, this review did not include prevalence of sexual aggression.
Finally, the studies on sexual minorities should be interpreted with extreme caution. Several of
the studies used non-standardized measures and there was not consistent definition of sexual
orientation used across studies. These are methodological limitations that make it difficult todraw firm conclusions.
#7 The Combined and Independent Impact of Witnessed
Intimate Partner Violence and Child Maltreatment
K. Watson MacDonell
155 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 3 (2012), pp. 358-378
Seventy-three articles were included in the present review; all dissertations, bookchapters, or articles not published in peer review journals were excluded. To be included, articles
had to contain data; therefore, no theoretical papers were reviewed. Outcomes related to either
witnessing IPV or experiencing childhood maltreatment and witnessing IPV had to be reported
in order for the article to be reviewed. Each article was summarized in a table format into six
subtopics. Articles that reported outcomes specific to multiple subtopics were listed in eachcorresponding table; however, entries only include relevant outcomes.
The research reviewed overwhelmingly suggests that children and adolescents exposed tomutual IPV are at risk for a wide range of detrimental outcomes. Negative consequences werereported in both the internalizing and externalizing domains of functioning, on health andcognitive outcomes as well as on youth’s relationships with family, peers and romantic partners.
These negative impacts of witnessing mutual IPV in childhood and adolescence have also beenfound to persist into adulthood. However, none of the reviewed studies explored the impact on
health or intellectual outcomes in adulthood and as these outcomes were found in youth exposed
to IPV, it is of interest to the field to assess whether these deficits are maintained long-term.
Few articles to date have explored the effect of perpetrator gender on exposure outcomes;
however, articles that did found interesting differences. There are clear indications that outcomescan differ depending on the gender of the perpetrator as well as the gender of the witness. Worse17

outcomes were found in youth exposed to male perpetrated IPV in internalizing andexternalizing behavioral domains as well as regarding the use of aggression against family
members and dating partners, compared to youth not exposed to violence. In adulthood, dating
violence was reported at greater rates in females exposed in youth and higher rates of substanceabuse were reported in exposed males and females. Outcomes related to exposure to female
perpetrated IPV were only reported within childhood and adolescence in the articles reviewed.
Again, higher rates of aggression towards peers, family members and dating partners wereconsistently reported in exposed youth, compared to non-exposed youth.
Children, when exposed to both IPV and childhood maltreatment have been described as
being dealt a ‘double whammy’, as they are exposed to two forms of family violence, eachindividually found to result in significant negative outcomes both in the short and long-term.
Overall, there are mixed results as to whether there are significant additive effects of witnessing
IPV and child maltreatment compared to witnessing IPV only. With some studies finding morenegative outcomes for ‘double whammy’ youth and others concluding that additive effects do
not exist. Compared to youth outcomes, less is known about the long-term impact ofexperiencing both childhood maltreatment and witnessing IPV on adult functioning. It wasconsistently reported that witnessing IPV was significantly associated with negative outcomes
related to adjustment (i.e. depression and trauma symptoms) in adulthood, however, it was
experiencing child abuse specifically that was found to contribute to the intergenerationaltransmission of family violence.
Implications for intervention and policy include increased funding to programs that
support parents leaving violent relationships, specifically to provide more intensive counselingfor youth witnesses, as well as resources to help the parent get back on their feet. Also, it issuggested that similar supports be made available for fathers leaving violent situations with theirchildren, as these do not exist. Prevention is imperative, as clear negative implications are related
to exposure to family violence. The implementation of evidence-based programs aimed at
reducing or preventing behavioral problems in children may aid in reducing familial violence as
reductions in child maltreatment have been found as positive outcomes related to this programs
and although it hasn’t been assessed, may reduce IPV as well.
Recommendations for future research include the continued use of the Child Behavioral
Checklist/Youth Self Report as well as the Conflict Tactics Scale, as both were utilized very
consistently across the literature allowing easy comparison across studies. Secondly, future
research should focus on samples that are more representative of the general population as aheavy reliance on sampling from, for example battered women’s shelters, might lead to an overrepresentation of families of lower socio-economic status being assessed. Lastly, as with mostresearch the reviewed literature primarily used cross-sectional designs. More emphasis on
longitudinal designs is needed as cross-sectional designs fail to provide a comprehensive pictureof the impact of experiencing family violence, especially with regards to these effects inadulthood.

18

#8 Impact of Parental Conflict and Emotional Abuse on Children and Families
Melissa L. Sturge-Apple, Michael A. Skibo, and Patrick T. Davies
113 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 3 (2012), pp. 379-400.
Four different subtopics are categorized and reviewed. These include the impact ofmutual couple conflict, verbal, and emotional abuse/control on children; the impact of father
perpetrated verbal, emotional abuse/control on children; the impact of mother perpetrated verbal,
emotional abuse/control on children; and the impact of partner conflict on the family system
including consideration of family stress, boundaries, alliances, and family structure
Studies which were published after 1990 and appeared in peer-reviewed journals areincluded in the review of research. We define “partner conflict” as the presence of conflictualinteractions, non-verbal and verbal indicators of anger hostility, and emotional abuse/control
within interparental relationships involving children. Thus, studies included within this topic
include assessments of these dimensions of interparental conflict and emotional abuse and also
include children in the family in the basis of analysis. Our review of the literature identified 105
studies which met the criteria listed above. There were also 56 studies which fell under the
topics and were considered, but were determined to not meet criteria for inclusion.
As an organizing framework for summarizing studies within this subtopic we utilizefamily systems conceptualizations which underscore two primary pathways by whichinterparental conflict and abuse may convey risk to children’s development. First, the direct
pathway hypothesis posits that interparental conflict has a direct impact on children’s functioningby virtue of their exposure to disagreements, disputes, hostility and anger between parents.
Second, the indirect pathway hypothesis proposes that interparental conflict engenders
difficulties in parenting and parent-child relationships which in turn put children at risk for
perturbations in development.
Findings from studies examining both direct and indirect path hypotheses suggest somecomplexity in the pathways outlined within these models. Specifically, results from these studies
suggest that the impact of interparental conflict on children through diminished parenting
behaviors varies across the type of conflict and types of parenting behaviors examined and acrossthe characteristics of the sample examined. First, across both direct and indirect pathway
research, children evidence a host of problematic outcomes when living in household contexts
characterized by high levels of marital hostility, contempt, and withdrawal. Studies show
elevated levels of child depression, anxiety, aggression, deviancy, poor school adjustment, peer
problems, insecure attachment, and lower self-esteem. It is clear that children are adversely
impacted by interparental conflict. Second, with respect to findings for the direct path
hypothesis, it appears that the nature and valence of the conflict has differential impacts onchildren’s outcomes, with conflict characterized by higher levels of contempt, withdrawal, andhostility having a greater impact upon children than conflict characterized solely by anger. In
addition, the topic of the discussion matters for children with conflict topics germane to the19child, such as disagreements over child rearing or blame of the child having the most serious
impact.
For findings with regard to the indirect path hypothesis, conflict appears to impact a
broad range of parenting behaviors including parental sensitivity, warmth, consistency indiscipline, harsh/hostile discipline, and psychological control. In addition, both maternal andpaternal parenting behaviors appear to suffer from interparental conflict, with some results
suggesting a greater impact upon mothers compared to fathers. However, there findings forparent gender differences at this point in time are somewhat equivocal. Finally, perturbations inparenting have an impact upon children, with greater effects for fathers than mothers. We
discuss refinements in these two hypotheses by process-oriented research endeavors explicating
potential mechanisms underlying how interparental conflict impacts child development. For
example, recent research suggests that neurobiological and physiological functioning may be
critical mediators of the relationships between interparental conflict and child problematic
outcomes.
It is important to note that the bulk of the studies we identified in our review of theliterature fell into the first subtopic. This is in turn reflected in the paucity of research on thesecond and third subtopic, father perpetrated verbal/emotional abuse and mother perpetrated
verbal/emotional abuse on children. Findings from this small corpus of studies indicate thefathers and mothers are distinct actors in the impact of interpartner conflict on children andfuture research should work to better disentangle the unique role that they play in processmodels. For example, it appears that the differential impact of fathers vs mothers may depend
upon the developmental age of the child, with greater effects found for mother-childrelationships and child outcomes during infancy and toddler years, and conversely greater
associations between father-child relationship functioning and child development during schoolage years.
Finally, we identified studies which examined the impact of partner conflict on the familysystem as a whole. Interparental relationships exist within a larger family unit, and theutilization of family systems frameworks for research on interparental conflict and children
provide important documentation of how discord within one subsystem may reverberate
throughout the rest of the family unit. The primary utility of a family systems approach is indemarcating how patterns or typologies of family functioning in the wake of interparental
conflict impact children’s development. For example, enmeshed and disengaged family patterns
have differential implications for children. Thus, the use of pattern-based analyses are useful forclinical endeavors with stressed families, however, assessing patterns of functioning at the levelof the family also brings with it a host of methodological and interpretational difficulties. For
example, according to the principle of holism in family systems theory, understanding the wholefamily dynamic requires quantification of the relationship structures, boundaries, power
distributions, and communication patterns of the other family subsystems.
Implications of this research for public policy initiatives and intervention efforts suggestthat targeting only the interparental dyad for services may not alleviate the effects of20

interparental conflict on children, and that consideration of the whole family and processes
within the family is necessary for the mental health and wellbeing of children in the family. In
addition, this body of research emphasizes the criticality of contextualizing policy and clinicalwork within a developmental framework, as the nature of associations between interparental
conflict and parent-child relationship difficulties depends to some extent upon the age of thechildren in the family. Finally, we offer several suggestions for future research including: (a)more precisely identify the multiple dimensions of family process in interparental conflictmodels, (b) explicating possible explanatory mechanisms underlying direct and indirect
pathways, (c) examining possible moderating variables to determine for whom these family
pathways may pose elevated risk or resilience, and (d) increasing the methodological rigor inempirical designs.
# 9 The Impact and Consequences of Partner Abuse on Partners
Erika Lawrence, Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo, Amie Langer & Rebecca Brock93 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 4 (2012)
The purpose of the current study was to review and critique the existing literature on thepsychological and physical consequences of psychological and physical abuse on partners. In thecurrent study, a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using a variety of searchengines and key terms (e.g., abuse, aggression, violence; intimate partner, relationship, partner,
spousal; psychological, emotional, physical). We included studies examining male and/or female
abusers and we included studies examining male and/or female victims. Within our review ofphysical consequences, we included studies that examined victims’ health behaviors (e.g.,smoking) as a possible consequence of abuse.
We narrowed our review to studies published from 1989-2012, studies published in
English, studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and studies containing empirical data.
Consequently, we excluded book chapters that did not include empirical data and excluded
doctoral dissertations. We also excluded studies examining the consequences of sexual abuse, asthat type of abuse was reviewed in another section of this project. We also excluded studies
examining the consequences of abuse on children or on parenting behaviors, as those
consequences were reviewed in another section of this project. Finally, we did not include
studies that focused exclusively on economic or social consequences for victims or society;however, we did include economic consequences to victims in our tables if those consequenceswere investigated as part of a study we were already including in our review.
The application of these inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 122 empirical articles
and 10 review articles on this topic. The empirical articles were categorized by the nature of theabuse and the nature of the consequences as follows: psychological consequences ofpsychological abuse, psychological consequences of physical abuse, and physical consequencesof physical and psychological abuse. Physical consequences of physical abuse and physicalconsequences of psychological abuse were combined into one table because these consequences21

were almost always examined in the same study. Within each of these tables we also organized
the studies by the nature of the sample they assessed as follows: large population samples,
smaller community samples, university/school samples, treatment-seeking samples, andlegal/criminal/justice-related samples. We also created a table of previously published review
articles on this topic. For each review article, we listed the articles those authors reviewed andthe main findings from those reviews. In our own review we included the relevant papers fromthose review articles as well. All studies included in this published review were entered into an
on-line summary table that includes the full reference for the study, the sample size and its
characteristics, the study method and design, the measures used, and the results relevant to thequestion of the psychological and physical consequences of psychological and physical abuse on
victims.
Given that 10 review articles have been published in the last two decades on this topic,
the current review was approached differently than the approaches taken in other manuscripts
from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project. Reporting prevalence rates, conducting
additional analyses, or conducting a meta-analysis or other detailed review summarizing thefindings in our 122 empirical studies would have been redundant with the existing publishedreviews on this topic. In brief, the multitude of basic research studies examining the impact ofabuse on partners yields strong and consistent evidence of two facts. First, psychological andphysical abuse have serious physical and psychological consequences for victims and theconsequences are, with some exceptions, generally greater for female victims compared to malevictims. Second, with regard to the physical consequences of physical abuse, injuries are similar
across samples of female victims (e.g., community samples, clinical samples, shelter samples).
Physical victimization has both negative physical and psychological consequences on its
victims. The most striking finding was the consistent and strong correlation between physicalvictimization and poorer physical health outcomes for female victims. Specifically, physicalvictimization was associated with increased chronic pain, gynecological problems (e.g., greater
probability of cervical cancer, pelvic pain, UTIs, abdominal pain, menstrual cycle changes,
child-birth delivery complications), gastrointestinal problems (e.g., Irritable Bowel Syndrome,
stomach pain), cardiovascular problems, compromised immunological functioning (e.g., lower
hemoglobin levels), vision and hearing difficulties, and nutritional deficits (e.g., low iron levels).
Physically victimized women were more likely to suffer from longstanding illnesses and chronic
diseases, to suffer physical injuries including potentially lethal injuries (e.g., burns, brokenbones, gunshot or knife wounds, facial injuries, concussions, losses of consciousness, traumaticbrain injury), to visit emergency rooms, and to be seen by physicians compared to women who
were not victimized.
The psychological consequences of physical victimization have also been well
documented in the literature. Experiencing physical abuse in a romantic relationship significantly
decreases female victims’ psychological well-being and increases the probability of sufferingfrom depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol or other substanceabuse. Physical victimization is also associated with higher rates of suicidal ideation and22attempts and with more memory and other cognitive impairments. Finally, compared to nonvictimized women, physically victimized women are more likely to report higher than normal
levels of stress and more visits to mental health professionals, and are more likely to takemedications to treat their depression and anxiety, including painkillers and tranquilizers.
Our review also demonstrated that psychological victimization leads to a variety ofconsequences for female victims’ psychological health, physical functioning (e.g., migraine,
stomach ulcers, indigestion, pelvic pain, chronic pain, chronic disease), and cognitive
functioning. Higher levels of psychological victimization are strongly associated with current
depressive and anxiety symptoms, insomnia, suicidal ideation, lower self-esteem, higher levelsof self-reported fear, and increased perceived stress. Moreover, the evidence suggests thatpsychological victimization is at least as strongly related to depression, PTSD, and alcohol use as
is physical victimization, and that the effects of psychological victimization remain even after
accounting for the effects of physical victimization.
There was a relative dearth of research examining the consequences of physical andpsychological victimization in men, and the studies that have been conducted have focused
almost exclusively on sex differences in injury rates. When sex differences were examined,
physical violence demonstrated more deleterious physical consequences for women than men.
Women were more likely to suffer severe and potentially life threatening injuries, and to visit anemergency room or hospital as a result of intimate partner violence. However, the severity of thephysical abuse seemed to moderate these sex differences in injury rates. When mild-to-moderate
aggression is perpetrated (e.g., shoving, pushing, slapping), men and women tend to reportsimilar rates of injury. When severe aggression has been perpetrated (e.g., punching, kicking,using a weapon), rates of injury are dramatically higher among women than men, and thoseinjuries are more likely to be life-threatening. Relatedly, there is limited research on thepsychological consequences of abuse on male victims, and the research that does exist has
yielded mixed findings (some studies find comparable effects of psychological abuse acrossgender, while others do not.) As such, we believe it is premature to draw conclusions about thepsychological consequences of violence for male victims.
In addition to the findings delineated above and in past reviews, we uncovered several
findings that had not been discussed in past reviews. First, there is a small but critical group ofstudies examining the effects of abuse on health behaviors (as opposed to physical health itself).
For example, researchers have examined the effects of abuse on diet, exercise, alcohol and othersubstance use, and smoking. Physically abused women have been found to engage in poorer
health behaviors, including a greater likelihood of smoking, engaging in sexually risky
behaviors, and having poor eating habits. Psychologically victimized women also have beenfound to engage in poorer health behaviors, including a greater likelihood of smoking andengaging in risky sexual behaviors. Second, in addition to the physical and psychologicalconsequences, physical victimization has serious economic and social consequences for victims
and society at large. Physically victimized women are more likely to miss work or be
unemployed, have lower educational attainment, have lower marital or relationship satisfaction,23

have fewer social and emotional support networks, be less involved in their communities, andexperience more negative life events. They are also less likely to be able to take care of theirchildren and perform household duties. Similarly, psychological victimization among women issignificantly associated with poorer occupational functioning and social functioning. Third, all of
the consequences found for victims of psychological and physical abuse are significantly worsefor victims who are of low income, are ethnic minorities, and/or are unemployed.
Despite the multitude of studies examining the consequences of abuse for victims, avariety of conceptual and methodological limitations to existing research hinder our
understanding of the consequences of abuse for victims. For example, with regard to the content
of prior studies, the research has been limited largely to studies of main effects, there is a lack ofbasic research on the physical consequences of violence for male victims other than basic sex
differences in injury rates, and there exists little research on (mal)adaptive coping mechanisms
among victims, a potentially key point of intervention. In terms of conceptual limitations, basic
research on the consequences of abuse for victims has been largely atheoretical, the construct of
psychological aggression has been inconsistently and poorly defined, and the relation between
psychological and physical aggression has rarely been taken into account. With regard tomethodological limitations, we found an overreliance on self-report questionnaires, the use ofpsychological violence measures that suffer from poor discriminant validity, and a reliance on
cross-sectional designs to investigate purported consequences of abuse. (Please see full publishedmanuscript for a more detailed discussion of these issues.)
Given these limitations, we recommend that future research be framed within atemporally dynamic view of violence and its consequences, employing multi-wave longitudinal
designs. We also encourage researchers seek to clarify mediating processes of the well-known
main effects in order to guide interventions for victims. We call for an emphasis on low income,ethnic minority and/or unemployed victims given the uniformly stronger consequences for thesevictims. We also encourage researchers to integrate investigations of multiple types of violence(psychological, physical, sexual), multiple victims of violence (partners, children), and multiple
factors (personality, relationship, situational) into their studies in order to elucidate the nature offamily violence. Finally, we recommend that interventions targeting partner violence be based on
acceptance and mindfulness techniques. Preliminary evidence from the authors’ own researchdemonstrates the effectiveness of such techniques at reducing psychological and physicalaggression among male perpetrators. We are confident that the field is ready to move into a newphase of basic research, one in which more nuanced questions can be answered and more
effective interventions can be implemented.
#10 Motivations for Men and Women’s Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration:
A Comprehensive Review
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Adrianne McCullars, & Tiffany Misra
168 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 4 (2012).

24

The current review addresses two central questions: 1) What motivates partners toperpetrate IPV and 2) Whether such motivations differ between men and women? Delineating
whether there are gender differences in motivations for perpetrating IPV has important clinicaland policy implications. Specifically, if men’s violence is enacted in order to subjugate womenand keep them in a position of vulnerability and disempowerment, then the treatment of men’s
violence will best be understood in the context of societal inequities for women.
Correspondingly, if women’s violence is primarily enacted out of self-defense in response to
their male partner’s violence, they should not be considered “husband batterers”. Furthermore,they are unlikely to benefit from being mandated to abuser/batterer treatment programs that were
designed specifically for men. On the other hand, if both men’s and women’s violence ismotivated by anger management concerns, lack of skills to communicate successfully with
intimate partners, or because of jealousy perhaps resulting from an inability to securely attach to
one’s partner, different types of IPV interventions are likely to be necessary and theseinterventions may not need to be so gender-specific. Instead, less gender-specific interventions
that take into account these latter types of motivations for violence may need to addressperpetrator-specific psychological issues as well as relationship-specific concerns.
We collected and summarized all available papers that report empirical data related tomen’s and women’s motivations for IPV (n = 73 empirical studies; n = 1 book chapter; 75 total
samples). Included studies were published in 1990 or later, appeared in peer-reviewed journals,
and contained empirical data. To facilitate direct gender comparisons, the motives reported ineach obtained study were coded by the current authors into seven broad categories: (a)Power/Control, (b) Self-defense, (c) Expression of Negative Emotion (i.e., anger), (d)Communication Difficulties, (e) Retaliation, (f) Jealousy, and (g) Other. These studies were also
coded by the nature of the sample they assessed as follows: large population samples, smaller
community samples, university/schools, clinical samples, and justice/legal related samples. To
facilitate a further understanding of gender differences or similarities in motivations for IPV
perpetration, existing empirical studies were also coded for whether they measured motivations
for men’s physical violence, motivations for women’s physical violence, or both. When gendercomparisons were available, studies were further coded as to whether the study reported thecorrelations between violence perpetration and some measured motivational risk factor.
Additionally, when gender comparisons were available, studies were then coded as to whether
the study specifically compared the degree to which men and women self-reported the same
motivations for their violence.
The existing heterogeneity in methodology, measurement, and construct development
may reflect the inherent challenge of determining a person’s motivation for committing violence.
Motivations are internal experiences that may be difficult for even the perpetrator to discern. For
example, when something like anger is self-reported as a motive for IPV, what might underliethat anger (hurt, jealousy, discomfort from lack of control, inability to communicate one’s
needs)? This specific difficulty is reflected in the studies included in this review as various
researchers collapsed anger with retaliation (Kernsmith, 2005), jealousy (Harned, 2001), or other25

emotional dysregulation problems. It is also possible to argue that anger is not a motive forviolence; it is an emotional state that is the context in which violence often occurs.
Differentiating motives, reasons, functions, justifications, and contexts is a challenge that faces
researchers in this area.
Still other studies included in this review had difficulty distinguishing between violence
committed in self-defense and violence committed as retaliation for pre-existing abuse of anemotional, physical, or sexual nature (Kernsmith, 2005). However, some authors have worked
hard to correct this concern (Shorey et al., 2010); these authors created a motivations for selfdefensive aggression scale. Moreover, very few of the currently published studies separated
proximal from distal motives and fewer, if any, relied on multifactorial theories that integrate
motives across time or understood changes in motives for perpetrating violence as a function ofindividual or relationship development. Finally, even when a perpetrator is able to accurately
introspect about and subsequent identify their relevant motives; social desirability concerns may
preclude admission of these motives on a self-report measure or via a face to face interview.
Unfortunately, social desirability measures are not routinely included as part of the assessment
strategy used in this field.
Individually, particular motives may be more acceptable to report than others; however,
the acceptability of reporting specific motives may also vary by gender. For example, it might beparticularly difficult for highly masculine males to admit to perpetrating violence in self-defense,as this admission implies vulnerability. Conversely, it may be more culturally sanctioned for
women to admit to perpetrating violence as a result of jealousy related to their partner’s infidelity
than to admit to committing violence as a power and control strategy. A better understanding ofgender socialization processes related to admission of motive would be helpful.
It is also possible that some motives may be more acceptable to report in particularsettings. For example, individuals facing criminal charges may be more likely to invoke selfdefense as a perpetration motive than individuals gathered in a university study, regardless of
their gender or their experiences with IPV. This is important to consider as 36% (n = 27) of thestudy samples in this review were drawn from university/school settings and 34% (n = 25) weredrawn from legal, criminal justice settings. Only 3% of the papers (n = 2) included in this review
obtained data from a large population based sample. Overall, as a consequence of experiencing
pressures that may differ as a function of individual differences, gender roles, and/or setting, theconclusions drawn about men and women’s motives for perpetrating IPV must be viewed withgreat caution.
However, in spite of the challenges embedded within this field, several important
findings can be gleaned from this review. First, there does seem to be consensus about the main
motivations to consider as findings from the majority of the studies fit into the motive coding
scheme developed by the current authors. Sixty-one percent of the samples included in thisreview assessed for motives of self-defense; 76% assessed for power/control motives. This not
surprising as these two motives are the cornerstone of the main gender-sensitive theories
regarding the perpetration of IPV by women versus men; they are also consistent with the Duluth
26

model of intervention for domestic violence (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Other common motives
assessed across these studies were anger/expression of negative emotion (63%) and using
violence to retaliate (60%). Common measurement of these motives is consistent with the otherset of widely used interventions for perpetrators of IPV (e.g., anger control interventions;
Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2001). It is worth noting that 47% of the studies measured
communication difficulties as a motive for perpetrating IPV; similarly, 49% measured jealousy
as a motivational precursor. These motives best fit with models that demonstrate that relationshipdissatisfaction is an important risk factor for IPV and it is a risk factor that may be especiallyhelpful when explaining the antecedents to what has become known as common couple violence(Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010).
Second, studies that considered the most frequent motivations for perpetration reported
by men and women often generated similar motives. For example, Kernsmith (2005) reported
that the most common reason that both men and women chose to use intimate partner violence
was to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them. Kernsmith also indicated that selfdefense, anger, and stopping a partner from doing something were common motives for both
men and women. Leisring (2011) reported that college women’s most common motives for
perpetration of minor physical violence were in retaliation for emotional hurt, anger, and becauseof stress or jealousy. Similarly, Shorey et al. (2010) concluded that, for both men and women,
the most common motives for perpetrating violence to retaliate for emotional hurt, to express
anger, to express feelings that they could not put into words or communicate, and to get theirpartner’s attention.
Finally, one of the main purposes of this review was to address the question of whether or
not there are gender differences in motivations for perpetrating IPV. This seemed possible giventhat 46 of the 75 study samples (61%) contained data from both men and women. Contrary to
expectation, relatively few papers contained data from only one gender (n = 24, women only; n =6, men only). It was unexpected that majority of the single gender papers focused on explaining
women’s perpetration of violence. Very few papers included only men’s reports, perhaps
suggesting that men’s self-reports of their motivations were considered more suspect.
Alternatively, some researchers in this area may have thought that men’s motives for
perpetrating violence were self-evident and thus not as worthy of extensive study.
Across this review, there were 18 study samples that provided a direct comparison ofmen and women’s motives for perpetrating IPV. Some of the gender comparisons seemed more
direct than others. For example, when the men and women are recruited in the same way fromthe same location, they are likely to be similar. In contrast, comparing male domestic violence(DV) perpetrators to women residing in a battered women’s shelter is likely to be problematic(e.g., Barnett et al., 1997). Likewise, it may be that women who are mandated to DV perpetrator
programs differ in some substantial ways as compared to men who are mandated to DV
perpetrator programs. Therefore, it is important to note who the men and the women are in thestudies that compare men and women’s motivations for perpetration.

27

In spite of all of these limitations, it is worth noting that the hypothesis that men would
report perpetrating violence as a means of power and control more frequently than women was
only partially supported. While three of six correlational studies that included data related to thismotive did report obtaining significant associations between power/control motivations for men
but not women; the other three indicated that the findings for men and women did not differ.
However, consistent with gender-specific theory, none of the obtained correlation studies
reported stronger associations between power and control motives and perpetration for women as
opposed to men.
With regard to the direct comparison studies, four of the 12 papers considering genderdifferences in the power/control motive did not subject their findings to statistical analyses. Of
the remaining studies, three reported that there were no significant gender differences in being
motivated by power/control to perpetrate violence. One paper found that women were more
motivated to perpetrate violence as a result of power/control than were men. The remaining threepapers found, as expected on the basis of gender-specific theory, that men endorsed more
power/control motives for their violence than did women (Barnett et al., 1997; Ehrensaft et al.,
1999; Shorey et al, 2010). The final direct comparison study had mixed findings (Makepeace,1986).
In a methodological advance, Shorey and colleagues (2010) reported effect sizes for their
obtained gender differences. Worth noting is that all the effect sizes for gender differences inmen endorsing power/control motives more than women would be classified as small in size.
This suggests that these gender differences are weak. However, the Shorey et al. (2010) study
was also conducted with a college student sample. Thus, stronger effects might be obtained witha different type of sample but utilizing the same measurement strategy. Thus, only two papers
report any evidence that this motive is stronger for women than men; however, there are few, ifany, indications that there is a strong effect such that power and control is much more of amotive for men’s as opposed to women’s violence.
Warranting further consideration, while most relationship behaviors, including violence,
can be understood as a way to influence, manipulate, and/or control one another, someperpetrators are likely to use this strategy exclusively and without remorse. Regardless of theirgender, these perpetrators are likely to need different intervention strategies than those whose
violence is more related to the emotional ups and downs that can be typical in less secure or
unstable relationships (Johnson, 2005; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010).
The notion that the self-defense motive is more common for women than men also
received some empirical support. Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statisticalanalyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as amotive for perpetration than men. However, four papers did not find statistically significant
gender differences. Only one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than
women (Shorey et al., 2010). The degree to which this finding holds for women in all samples
and settings, is consistent over time, and is relevant for women of different ages and ethnicities
warrants additional consideration. Still, despite findings of gender differences in half of these28

studies, it is important to point out that self-defense as a motive for violence is endorsed in most
samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female. For non-perpetrator samples, therates of self-defense reported by men ranged from 0% to 21%, and for women the range was 5%
to 35%. The highest rates of reported self-defense motives (50% for men, 65.4% for women)came from samples of perpetrators, who may have reasons to overestimate this motive. In
addition, further work needs to be done to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation forpreviously experience violence as these motives were difficult to separate in many of the papers
included in this review.
None of the included papers in this review solely reported that anger/retaliation was
significantly more of a motive for men than women’s violence; instead, two papers indicated thatanger was more likely to be a motive for women’s violence as compared to men. This isimportant because within the United States’ culture, it may be more acceptable for men toexperience and express anger than women because of socialization processes or adherence totraditional gender roles (Fischer & Evers, 2011; Shields, 2002). Women who perpetrate violence
may particularly need more productive ways to manage anger within their personal relationships(Goldhor-Lerner, 1985). However, making conclusions about gender differences related to theanger motive is particularly uncertain because many authors measured this motive in conjunction
with something else (i.e., jealousy, retaliation) and a substantial subset of papers in this area did
not subject their findings to statistical analyses (5 of 13 studies). A better and clearer
understanding of how this motive influences the perpetration of IPV is warranted.
Finally, contrary to expectation, jealousy/partner cheating seems to be a motive toperpetrate violence for both men and women. This motive has been linked with an insecureattachment style in romantic relationships (Buunk, 1997; Guerrero, 1998; Hazan & Shaver,
1987; McCullars, 2012). Thus, it might be that less secure and stable relationships are more
susceptible to IPV because they are unsure of the commitment and fidelity of their partner.
However, given the extremely small number of papers that are summarized here, these findings
should be considered preliminary.
Taken as a whole, however, the findings gleaned from this review suggest that this areaof the IPV field is in its infancy. Researchers have employed different measurement tools,
focused on different motives, reported findings in different ways, made use of different
informants, differed in whether or not they measured both men and women, and utilized different
samples. Moreover, this paper has exclusively focused on understanding the motives
precipitating physical violence. Other motives are likely to be more relevant for the perpetrationof psychological or sexual violence. Likewise, those who perpetrate across a variety ofrelationships or on multiple occasions are likely to use violence differently than individuals who
have perpetrated a limited amount of violence in the context of one problematic relationship. As
a consequence, making meaningful conclusions on the basis of the articles included in thisreview was not fully possible.
Nonetheless, it seems clear that both men and women perpetrate violence in response toa variety of motives. Violence can occur as a consequence of not knowing how to appropriately
29manage anger, jealousy, and communication difficulties (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). The
context in which the emotion occurs may also further motivate or inhibit violence (e.g., learning
about a partner’s infidelity after having a few drinks versus having a partner wear revealing
clothes to a work function where one is trying to impress one’s boss). A better understanding ofwhat motivates individuals to stop using violence over time or to refrain from violence in acontext in which violence has often been deemed culturally acceptable would also be valuable.
In summary, much work remains in order to understand the motives underlying both men
and women’s perpetration of IPV. The types of motives that are measured need to betheoretically based and consistent across samples to facilitate comparisons. Allowing
perpetrators to endorse a variety of motives, as experienced across a range of contexts is likely tolead to a deeper, proximal/distal and multifactorial understanding of what underlies IPV.
Integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies is necessary. It may also be that there areindividual, interpersonal, environmental, and societal motives that facilitate violence
perpetration. Measuring the full array of these disparate motives in both men and women who
are perpetrators will be essential. Developing a clearer picture of what motivates violence, forwhom, and under what conditions will better inform violence prevention and intervention efforts.
It may also facilitate theory development in the field of IPV.
# 11 The Crime Control Effects of Criminal Sanctions for Intimate Partner Violence
Christopher Maxwell and Joe Garner
72 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 4 (2012)
This research provides a systematic review of published studies that provide evidence
regarding the crime control benefits from prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of IPV
offenders, assesses the nature and quality of those studies, and summarizes the reported findings
about the crime control effects of criminal sanctions. Unfortunately, the research on theeffectiveness of criminal sanctions for IPV does not address the underlying causal mechanisms
and typically does not collect information which could permit distinguishing the effects of fear of
sanctions from victim empowerment or other potential mechanisms by which sanctions might
affect future behavior. For this reason, we specify a generic crime control effect that is neutral
about the mechanism by which sanctions affect future behavior. In addition, our specificationconsiders that all types of sanctions may not have an effect that is consistent in size or direction.
Therefore, we identify three hypotheses about the effects of criminal sanctions on IPV. We label
these the prosecution hypothesis, the conviction hypothesis and the sanction severity hypothesis.
This approach permits distinctions among three policy choices in criminal justice processing–thedecision to charges, the decision to convict, and the type of sanction imposed upon convicted
offenders.
Among the 135 publications used to estimate the amount of prosecution and conviction
by Garner and Maxwell (2009), we have identified 30 that assess the relationship between theapplication of sanctions by the criminal courts and repeat offending. This review describes the30characteristics of each of the studies, summarizes the substantive findings reported and evaluates
the research designs, measures and methods used. These 30 studies generated 143 statisticaltests that inform one of these three crime prevention hypotheses. For each study and by eachhypothesis, we present the number of reported statistical tests that show that criminal sanctions
were significantly associated with less repeat offending, more repeat offending, or do notsignificantly affect repeat offending.
Based upon the analyses and conclusions produced by these studies, we find that the mostfrequent outcome reported is that sanctions that follow an arrest for IPV have no effect on theprevalence of subsequent offending. This finding holds for the prosecution, conviction andsanction severity hypotheses. However, among the minority of reported analyses that do report a
statistically significant effect, two-thirds of the published findings show sanctions are associatedwith reductions in repeat offending and one third show sanctions are associated with increased
repeat offending.
Our examination of the methods used by these studies identified seven common issues
that suggest that, regardless of the substantive findings reported, the research designs used inthese 30 reports are inadequate to assess the relevant public policies and criminological theories.
Based upon our systematic assessment of the published studies, we conclude that the
preponderance of the reported findings show no effect for criminal sanctions; however, thequality of the methods used in this body of research provides us with an insufficient basis tosupport a conclusion about the use of criminal prosecution and sentencing for IPV.
To address this gap, we recommend that the field undertake a well-funded, long-term
program of research that will rigorously test these and other crime control hypotheses. This
program must articulate the causal mechanisms under review, model when the effects begin anddissipate, use reliable and common outcome and sanction measures, distinguish selection effects
from treatment effects, incorporate rigorous multivariate analyses, and meet contemporary
standards for statistical power. The National Institute of Justice-sponsored Spouse Assault
Replication Program is an example of such an approach. While imperfect, this program provided
the rigorous, systematic evidence necessary to assess the crime control effects of arrest for IPV.
We also recommend using existing data from these 30 studies to improve our understanding of
this body of research and of the crime control effects of criminal sanctions through secondary
data analyses.
#12 Gender and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Criminal JusticeDecision Making in Intimate Partner Violence Cases
Stan Shernock and Brenda Russell
133 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol. 3, Issue no. 4 (2012)
Scholarly studies from 1985-2011 were located using a number of databases, including
PSYCH-INFO, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Criminal Justice Abstracts,
Criminal Justice Periodicals, and Sociological Abstracts. This led to a total of about 203531sources. After screening out irrelevant articles, a total of 16 were included for protective orders,
39 for arrest, 24 for prosecution, and 27 for jury decision making. An evaluation of themethodologies employed found that some studies have used one or multiple types of official data
sources, such as police reports (incident forms, narratives or affidavits), court records, andcriminal histories, while other studies have used interviews or surveys of victims or suspects; but
few have used triangulation of both official sources and surveys or interviews. Almost all
studies of differential decision making in jury verdicts have been experimental studies ofsimulated situations.
Most studies on differential treatment in arrest and prosecution have focused on genderand then race, while studies on differential decision making in the issuance of protective orders
and jury decision making have focused primarily on gender. In the few studies that examined
protective orders, judges were overwhelmingly more likely to issue them to women than to men
seeking them (particularly in cases of less severe violence histories), to impose greater
restrictions on male defendants, and to defer cases of male plaintiffs, and deny requests at 10-day
hearings. The overwhelming number of studies that examined differential arrest by gender foundthat male suspects are more likely to be arrested than female suspects; however, the difference inarrest rates was mitigated by dual arrests, which contribute to a significant increase in thenumber and greater likelihood of arrests of women. Greater arrest rates for women also seem tobe affected by higher SES, and the presence of weapons and witnesses (legal factors).
Many students of IPV have argued that when examining the context and history
associated with the arrest of women, particularly in dual arrest incidents, that women were
engaged in self-defense. However, when official action was taken against women, there wasgreater leniency by citing instead of taking them into custody or by charging them with lessserious offenses. While a small number of studies have not found evidence of differential
treatment by prosecutors regarding the gender of the offender or victim, most studies withsmaller community samples, and some with larger samples, found that males were consistently
treated more severely at every stage of the prosecution process, particularly regarding thedecision to prosecute, even when controlling for other variables (e.g., the presence of physicalinjuries) and when examined under different conditions.
The gender discrepancy decreases somewhat with the decision to file felony or
misdemeanor charges. In the few studies of gender differences in conviction and sentencing,
most have found that male defendants are more likely to be convicted and to receive more severe
sentences than female defendants. Subjects in experimental studies of jury decision making in
IPV cases have stronger reactions to abuse committed against female victims and abusecommitted by male perpetrators, with blame and responsibility often attributed to maleperpetrators of assault at higher rates than female perpetrators.
In studies of IPV that simply look at arrest rates in both single and dual arrest cases, aswell as the general police handling of IPV incidents, there appears to be little differential
treatment against racial minorities. Mandatory arrest policies appear to reduce the importance ofvictim race to insignificance. Most studies of decisions to prosecute, as well as the few studies
32

on conviction and sentencing, have found that race and ethnicity were not statistically significant
when specifying relevant conditions or controlling for other variables. Thus, in terms of thedifferential criminal justice response regarding demographic categories, it appears that the lessfavorable treatment of males regarding the issuance of protection orders, arrest, and prosecution
is most salient. However, before recommending new policies, interview and survey studies oflegal actors should be undertaken in order to better understand the differential treatment found instudies using official sources, as well as how the concepts of “probable cause” and “primary
aggressor” are interpreted when applied.
Moreover, future research studies on differential criminal justice response based on
demographic and SES factors should include greater specifications and distinctions in thevariables examined and broaden the scope of the samples and methods employed. First, studies
need to better define the specific types of criminal justice response and distinguish them from
related types of responses. For instance, since arrest in IPV is supposed to stop the violence, it isimportant to distinguish between arrest, which involves taking a suspect into custody and lodging
him/her, and citation, which requires appearance in court at a later date. In order to understandwhether a differential response is isolated or systemic, it is also important to examine otherrelated police and prosecutor decisions, such as the decision regarding what to charge thesuspect.
Secondly, there is a need to specify the characteristics of those groups and both thesituational and historic context where a differential criminal justice response has been found.
Therefore, it is important to examine the interaction effects of other socio-demographic factors(particularly SES and age), relationship status, and situational conditions (e.g., presence ofweapons or alcohol) with primary socio-demographic factors. Besides triangulating official
sources with interviews and surveys in studies on protective orders, arrest, and prosecution,
experimental studies of jury decision should be complemented by using focus groups to better
understand the group dynamics of juries; and with court records to compare findings fromsimulations with actual cases. Finally, since community studies with small samples are notgeneralizable, there is a need for more multi-site or national studies.
#13 Effectiveness, victim safety, characteristics and enforcement of protective orders
Brenda Russell
73 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol.3, Issue no.4 (2013)
To provide an overview of the extant literature on the effectiveness of Protective Orders(POs)s, an examination of POs led to the identification of at least four research themes
including: (1) victim safety and effectiveness (often measured by PO violations and revictimization); (2) perceptions of victim satisfaction, safety, and psychological well-being as afunction of the issuance of a PO; (3) predictors and characteristics of victims, perpetrators, andthe granting of POs; and (4) the enforcement of POs. For inclusion in this review, the study had
to be published after 1990 and peer reviewed. The review of PO literature revealed 370 articles
33

meeting the aforementioned criteria. Of those articles, 43 met the inclusion criteria for one of thefour themes—5 of the articles were literature reviews, and 39 were empirical research studies.
Studies meeting the criteria of one or more of the themes above can be found in the tables.
It is debatable how one defines PO ‘effectiveness’. For the purpose of this study,‘effectiveness’ refers to violations of POs and/or re-victimization. Also, subsequent sub-topics
associated with POs ‘effectiveness’ have been separately tabulated in order to summarize thestudies. Research on victim safety and effectiveness implies that 44-70% of POs are violated.
Approximately 40% of women obtaining permanent POs (Kaci, 1994) are less likely to reportphysical violence to police (Holt et al., 2002). Almost 60% of women reported they were stalked
when they had a PO (Logan & Cole, 2007 Three studies found POs reduced incidents ofviolence, and others stated POs led to an 80% reduction in police reported physical violence.
Although research evidence of PO effectiveness is mixed, greater evidence suggests POs are
violated, and victims are re-victimized after POs are issued.
Studies on perceptions of victim safety, satisfaction, and psychological well-being show
victim psychological well-being and safety appear to increase when POs are issued. Research on
predictors and characteristics of victims and perpetrators and the granting of POs is lesscommon. Studies inspecting different issues associated with victims and/or perpetrators of abuse,have found that while married and unmarried victims do not differ in abuse suffered, married
victims are less likely to seek final orders. For instance, mothers who take out POs are more
likely to be re-victimized, experiencing greater aggression and poorer health. One study (Mele,
Roberts, & Wolfer, 2011)examined characteristics of men issued POs and found most men
reported physical abuse as the reason they requested the PO and those who followed throughwith a final PO experienced more types of abuse and sought custody of their child. Less evidence
exists on offender characteristics. The best evidence predictor of a PO violation is previous PO
violations and the severity of criminal charges imposed. Clearly, from the four studies provided
on PO issuance, females are more likely to be granted POs than males. Of the few studies on PO
enforcement, results showed no gender differences in arrest of males versus females who
violated POs, nor were there gender differences in recidivism. However, women were more
likely sent to anger management, while men were more likely sent to batterer intervention
programs.
Implications for public policy include determining acceptable rates of PO violation andre-victimization considered effective. Evidently, communities, the criminal justice system, andscholars need to deem PO violation rates and re-victimization as unacceptable, or acceptable.
Moreover, a cost analysis of POs would assist in understanding effectiveness. Suggested future
research might include: (1) the use of additional control groups; (2) a cost analysis of PO
policies; (3) assessment of PO violations as they relate to arrest and sentencing decisions; (4)investigation of male victims, same-sex couples’ experience with the PO process, and female
offenders who obtain POs; and (5) examination of potential differences among various types of
POs.

34

#14 Partner Abuse Worldwide
Esteban Eugenio Esquivel-Santoveña, Teri Lambert, and John Hamel
283 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol.4, Issue no.1 (2013)
In most of the world, research on partner abuse has lagged behind the United States.
Especially in Third World countries, attention has been on other problems (such as famine andwar) and other crimes against women (e.g., honor killings, genital mutilation).
Purpose of Study and Method
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we conducted a sweeping review ofscholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals and by government agencies outside of theUnited States and English-speaking developed nations that provided quantitative data on
physical, psychological and sexual abuse of intimate partners, as well as consequences, risk
factors and attitudes. Most of the studies reported on female victimization only, but 73 reported
on both male and female victimization. Secondly, we conducted an analysis of data from large
community and national surveys, including from one multi-country study of dating violence, todetermine the relationship between prevalence of abuse, social factors and women’s
empowerment.
We sought to answer a few basic questions, as suggested by the body of research
evidence, as well as current theories:
1.
What are the rates of physical, psychological and sexual abuse and controlling
behaviors between intimate partners higher in countries outside of the United States and other
English-speaking developed nations?
2.
How do these rates compare across gender?
3.
What is the impact of partner abuse on victims and families?
4.
What are the risk factors for partner abuse?
5.
On a societal level, what is the association between a country’s level of humandevelopment and rates of partner abuse?
6.
What is the association between the status of women and their rates of partner
abuse victimization?
7.
On a relationship level, is dominance by one partner correlated with rates ofpartner violence against the other partner in the rest of the world, as it is in the United States?
Results of Literature Review
A total of 162 articles reporting on over 200 studies met the inclusion criteria and weresummarized in the online tables for Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and Europe and the Caucasus.
Gender Inclusive Studies
Across all five world regions, we identified 40 articles (total of 73 studies) in 49 countries
containing data on both male and female IPV. The majority of the studies (44) reported on
results based on dating student, adolescent or clinical samples; 29 of the studies were based onlarge population or community samples.
35

There were a total of 117 direct comparisons across gender for physical PV. Rates ofphysical PV were higher for female perpetration /male victimization compared to maleperpetration/female victimization, or were the same, in 73 of those comparisons, or 62%. There
were 54 comparisons made for psychological abuse including controlling behaviors anddominance, with higher rates found for female perpetration /male victimization, in 36
comparisons (67%). Of the 19 direct comparisons were made for sexual PV, rates were found tobe higher for female perpetration /male victimization in 7comparisons (37%). Higher rates forany female perpetration /male victimization were found in only 2 of 8 comparisons (25%). In
total, there were 198 direct comparisons across gender, for all types of partner abuse. The rates
were higher for female perpetration /male victimization, or the same, in 118 comparisons, or60%. A higher number of comparisons indicating greater female victimization/ maleperpetration was found in 18 countries. Greater female perpetration/male victimization was
found in 23 countries, and an equal number of comparisons was found in 8 countries.
Given that several of the IDVS studies were based on very small samples, the limitationsof clinical samples, and the superiority of more representative community and large population
samples, we also looked separately at the 44 large population and community samples thatreported on adult, non-student abuse. Together, these yielded 81 direct comparisons acrossgender. The percentage of partner abuse that was higher for female perpetration /malevictimization compared to male perpetration/female victimization, or were the same, were as
follows: Physical abuse – 22/44 (50%); Psychological abuse/control/ dominance – 10/19 (53%);
Sexual abuse – 4/13 (31%); Any abuse – 0/5 (0%). The overall percentage was 44% for adult
IPV. However, it should be noted that in many comparisons, the differences were slight. For
example, past year physical victimization rates in Namibia were 15% for men and 17% forwomen; lifetime physical abuse perpetration in South Africa was reported at 26.5% for men and25.2% for women; and in Portugal wives reported insulting and humiliating partners at a rate of
16.2% compared to husbands at 18.6%). When these close percentages are taken into account,then the overall percentage of adult IPV that is symmetrical – comparable across gender, or
higher in the direction of male victimization/female perpetration – constitutes the majority of
IPV throughout the world. In 11 countries women were found to be predominantly victims andmales were found to be primarily perpetrators. There were 14 countries in which rates of partner
abuse from larger populations were found to be symmetrical across gender: China, Hong Kong,
Philippines, Thailand, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Barbados, Brazil, Jamaica,
Trinidad/Tobago, Portugal and Ukraine.
Emerging research
The International Parenting Study (IPS), conducted by consortium of researchers with a
total sample of 11,408 university students in 15 countries (mostly Europe, but also the U.S. andCanada, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Israel.) The students reporting on physical assaults between
their parents when they were 10 years old. Preliminary results indicate that fathers assault
mothers at a rate ranging from 0.3% in Norway to 9.9% in Slovenia, with a median rate of 3.8%;
and mothers assault fathers at an overall higher rate (median = 8%), and ranging from 1.7%
36

(Spain) to 24.9% (Poland). However, the mean number of parental assaults was found to behigher for fathers.
Studies Reporting only Female IPV Victimization
Across the major regions of the world the lowest reported past year rates for physicalabuse victimization reported in the female victimization-only studies were found in a large
population study in Georgia (2%) and a community survey in Japan (3.1%). Lifetime rates were
lowest again in Georgia (5%), and in a community survey in Nigeria (5.3%). The highest ratesof physical IPV victimization were found in a community survey in Ethiopia (72.5% past year)
and among a rural population in Bangladesh (67% lifetime). On the higher end, rates of physicalPV far exceed the average found in the United States.
The lowest rates of past year psychological victimization were found in large population
studies in Haiti (10.8%) and India (12%); lifetime rates were lowest again in Haiti (13.2%), as
well as in large population studies in Columbia (11.5%) and Georgia (19%). The highest past
year psychological abuse prevalence was 98.7% in Bangkok, Thailand (past year), and lifetime
rates were the highest in a clinical population in Iran (82.6%) and in a Brazilian slum (80.2%).
Unlike physical IPV, the highest rates of psychological abuse throughout the world are about thesame as those found in the United States (80%).
Rates of sexual abuse victimization differed widely across regions, with past year rates as
low as 1% in Georgia (large population) and 1.3% in Japan (urban community), and lifetime
rates of 0.6% in Egypt (large population), 1% found in (large population) and 1.1% in Honduras(large population). In contrast, the rates for the past year were as high as 53.4% in Pakistan(community survey) and 58% in Ethiopia (large population). In Pakistan, lifetime rates were
found to be 54.5% in a community survey, and the highest rates of all were found in a study ofsecondary school students in Ethiopia, at an astounding 68%.
Impact on victims
The various regions reported similar kinds of consequences for victims who haveexperienced IPV. Surprisingly, a relatively small number of studies focused on the physicalconsequences of partner violence. Those that did either did not specify the types of injuries, or
identified bruises and broken bones. Physical injuries were compared across gender in two
studies. As expected, abused women were found to experience higher rates of physical injuries
compared to men both for the past year in a Chilean student population (15.9% vs. 6.98%) andsince age 14 (19.5% vs. 13.3%), and in a large population study from Uganda (43% vs. 33%.)
Far more frequently mentioned were the psychological and behavioral effects of abuse, and theseincluded PTSD symptomology, stress, depression, irritability, feelings of shame and guilt, poor
self-esteem, flashbacks, sexual dissatisfaction and unwanted sexual behavior, changes in eating
behavior, and aggression. Two studies compared mental health symptoms across gender. In
Botswana, women were found to evidence significantly more of these than men; whereas in aclinical study in Pakistan male and female IPV victims suffered equally (60% of men andwomen reported depression, 67% anxiety.)37

A variety of health-related outcomes were also found to be associated with IPV
victimization, including overall poor physical health, more long-term illnesses, having to take alarger number of prescribed drugs, STDs, and disturbed sleeping patterns. Abused mothers
experienced poorer reproductive health, respiratory infections, induced abortion andcomplications during pregnancy; and in a few studies their children were found to experience
diarrhea, fever and prolonged coughing.
Risk factors
The most common risk factors found in this review of IPV in Asia, Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America and Europe have also been found to be significant risk factors in the U.S.
and other English-speaking industrialized nations. Most often cited are the risk factors related to
low income household income and victim/perpetrator unemployment, at 36. An almost equallyhigh number of studies (35) reported\ victim’s low education level. Alcohol and substance abuseby the perpetrator was a risk factor in 26 studies. Family of origin abuse, whether directly
experienced or witnessed, was cited in 18 studies. Victim’s younger age was also a major risk
factor, mentioned in 17 studies, and perpetrator’s low education level was mentioned in 16. Less
frequently mentioned were victim’s substance abuse (8 studies), victim living in a rural
environment (5 studies), and victim having married at a younger age and being HIV positive (4studies each).
Attitudes about IPV
By 1994 approval in the U.S. of a husband slapping his wife for any reason was endorsed
by only 10% of the population. In contrast, there is a much higher tolerance by both men andwomen for IPV in other parts of the world, with rates of approval depending on the country andthe type of justification. Between 28% and 41% of men agreed that it is sometimes necessary fora man to beat his wife, and in Nigeria a remarkable 79% of women said that wife-beating issometimes justified. Reasons given for why violence against wives might be justified include
her infidelity, refusing him sex, arguing, burning his food, leaving without his permission andwasting money. Given the high rates of female-to-male abuse found in this review, it isnoteworthy that none of the studies asked respondents about their views on husband-beating.
Nonetheless, perpetrator pro-violent and gender-based beliefs are a serious problem, identified
risk factors in 12 studies (mostly in Africa and Asia).
Results of Data Analysis
Regression analyses indicated that a country’s level of human development (as measured
by HDI) was not a significant predictor of male or female physical partner abuse perpetration,neither in studies using general population/large community samples nor in studies conductedwith dating samples. Similarly, regression analyses did not find HDI level to be a significant
predictor of female partner abuse victimization in studies that used population or large
community samples.
Additional regression analyses indicated that a nation’s gender inequality level, as
measured by the Gender Inequality Index (GII), was not predictive of either male or female
perpetrated physical partner abuse or female-only victimization in studies conducted with38

general population or community samples. However, separate regression analyses on data fromthe IDVS with dating samples indicate that higher gender inequality levels significantly predicthigher prevalence of male and female physical partner abuse perpetration. GII level explained
the variance for 17% of male partner abuse and 19% of female partner abuse perpetration.
A final analysis examined the association between dominance by one partner and partner
violence perpetrated against a partner in dating samples using data from the IDVS, because thiswas the only multi-country study to consistently provide data for men and women on dominancescores. Male dominance scores were not found to be predictive of male partner violence
perpetration; however, female dominance scores were found to significantly predict scores ofpartner violence perpetration by women. Female dominance scores explained 47% of thevariance of female partner violence perpetration.
Results of this review suggest that partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely agender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and shouldbe framed as such by everyone concerned.
#15 Risk Assessment In Intimate Partner Violence:
A Review of Contemporary Approaches
Tonia Nicholls, Michelle Pritchard, Kim Reeves, and Edward Hilterman
175 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol.4, Issue no. 1 (2013)
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has profound and widespread health and economic
implications at an individual, familial, and societal level. Violence risk assessment measuresoffer an evidence-informed approach to ascertain the degree of threat an abuser poses. Risk
assessments are an essential means of informing professionals and victims alike regarding thenature and intensity of services required to help keep a victim safe as well as a transparent anddefensible indicator of the rationale for intervening with an abuser (e.g., sentencing, probation
conditions, required treatment). Violence risk assessment measures have been in existence forseveral decades and there has been a proliferation of IPV specific measures developed. However,there is little agreement in the literature with regard to the most appropriate approach (actuarial,
structured clinical judgment) nor which specific measure has the strongest empirical validation
behind it, leaving clinicians and policy makers with little clear guidance.
The state of knowledge regarding risk assessment for IPV was summarized through asystematic examination of all English publications from westernized nations from 1990 to 2011.
Three search engines (PsychINFO, Science Direct, and Social Science Index) identified 3361
potentially relevant articles. After dropping duplicates, examining titles and abstracts andremoving articles that did not explicitly examine risk assessments for IPV we were left with a
total of 39 articles. Our specific objectives were to: (a) identify all IPV risk assessment measuresand relevant approaches (e.g., pilot tools; women’s appraisals of their partner’s risk, theapplication of non-IPV specific measures to IPV populations/risk); (b) describe briefly the
purpose, development and use of the various risk assessment approaches; and (c) report the state39

of the validation of the various measures and evaluate the psychometric properties of thesediverse approaches (inter-rater reliability, convergent validity, predictive validity).
The review yielded studies reporting on the validity and reliability of eight IPV specificactuarial instruments and three general actuarial risk assessment measures. The range of area
under the curve (AUC) values reported for the validity of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk
Assessment (ODARA; Hilton, et al., 2004) predicting recidivism was good to excellent (0.64 –0.77). The single study that reported on the Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG;
Hilton, Harris, Rice, Houghton, & Eke, 2008) reported an AUC = 0.70 (p < .001). The inter-rater
reliability for both instruments was excellent. The Domestic Violence Screening Inventory(DVSI, Williams & Houghton, 2004) and Domestic Violence Screening Inventory – Revised(DVSI-R; Williams & Grant, 2006) were found to be good predictors of new family violence
incidents and IPV recurrence (AUC range 0.61 – 0.71). Three studies examined the Psychopathy
Checklist – Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG;
Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2006), neither of which are
IPV specific, reporting AUCs ranging from 0.66 – 0.71 and 0.67 - 0.75, respectively. The Levelof Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995, 2000, 2001) and Level ofService Inventory – Ontario Revision (LSI-OR; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 1995) werediscussed in four articles, reporting two AUC values of 0.50 and 0.73, both of which werepredicting IPV recidivism.
Two structured professional judgment instruments were included in the review, theSpousal Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1994, 1995,
1999, 2008) and the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER; Kropp,Hart, & Belfrage, 2005). The SARA research reports nine AUCs ranging from 0.52-0.65. Theinterrater reliability (IRR) for the SARA was excellent for total scores, good for the summary
risk ratings, and poor for the critical items. Although neither of the articles examining the BSAFER reported the predictive validity of the instrument one did report the IRR based on 12
cases with a mean interclass coefficient (ICC) of 0.57.
The current literature for the Danger Assessment (DA; Campbell, 1986; Campbell,
Webster, & Glass, 2009) and unstructured Victim Appraisals do not provide a clear picture of thevalidity and reliability of these two approaches to ascertaining an abuser’s future risk of IPV.
The DA has the largest body of literature behind it, but there are limitations in the research that
inhibit a clear determination of the psychometric properties of the measure, thus far. Victim
appraisals of the risk of future IPV show some evidence of predictive accuracy, even exhibiting
greater predictive validity than some risk assessment instruments (Heckert & Gondolf, 2004) andadding significantly to regression models (Weisz et al., 2000); however, further research isneeded to determine the best means with which to collect the victim’s reports and determining
the conditions (e.g., stalking) and characteristics of victims that should be considered (e.g.,
PTSD, substance use).
Overall, the literature reveals moderate postdictive/predictive accuracy across measureswith little evidence to support one as being highly superior to others, particularly given the40

heterogeneity of perpetrators and victims, study limitations, and the small body of empiricalliterature to date. Although lethal assault (which might reflect femicide, filicide, and/or
familicide) is of greatest concern, the necessary evidentiary basis for recommending a measure toassess for risk of lethal IPV violence is highly limited (also see Bowen, 2011; Guo & Harstall,
2008; Hart & Watt, 2008).
Several themes emerged when we examined the synthesized literature: (1) There is arelatively small body of empirical evidence evaluating IPV violence risk assessment measures.
(2) The need for continued advancements in the methodological rigor of the research including
prospective studies, research that compares multiple measures within single studies, and researchthat uses large samples and appropriate outcome indicators. Particularly challenging is studying
the predictive validity of measures intended to predict femicide. There also is a need forincreased consistency in adhering to measure guidelines in evaluation studies (i.e., coding themeasures in the manner recommended), obtaining criterion data from multiple and reliable
sources and using outcome data that matches the intended use of the risk assessment measures.
(3) A need to extend the investigation of the validity and reliability beyond North American
borders and expand the cross-validation research to diverse samples (e.g., Gay- Lesbian –Bisexual-Transgendered; male victims/female perpetrators). (4) A particularly exciting
development in IPV risk assessment research is evidence that risk assessments can serve to
reduce risk levels (Belfrage et al., 2011).
In terms of clinical implications, the review demonstrates the considerable promise of
several IPV risk assessment measures but generally reveals modest postdictive/predictive
accuracy for most measures. Limited evidence for the superiority of actuarial vs. SPJ measures
was evident. Similarly, IPVspecific risk assessment measures were not found to consistently
outperform general violence risk assessment measures; however, we would recommend
considerable caution in interpreting this finding given the small number of studies examining
non-IPV measures and the fact that only one of those studies actually used IPV recidivism as theoutcome criterion. We would assert this may largely be a reflection of poor study designs andprocedures (e.g., not using the SARA in the preferred manner), particularly given meta-analyses
in the risk assessment field have found context/outcome specific measure to have an advantage
over non-population/offence specific measures (Singh, Grann, & Fazel, 2011). Given thechallenges in comparing across studies and the heterogeneity of partner abusers it seems
premature to recommend one preferred assessment measure/approach to clinicians. Victim
appraisals, while the research has a considerable ways to go, were found to have clinicalrelevance. However, preliminary evidence suggests that clinicians may want to be particularly
cautious when working with some sub-groups when taking into account victims’ perceptions(e.g., PTSD symptoms, substance use, stalking and severe abuse experienced) and supplement
the woman’s input with an additional structured assessment.
When clinicians and administrators are faced with the challenge of determining whichmeasure(s) to use to assess risk of IPV they should carefully consider the purpose of theassessment (Heilbrun, 2009). Assessors also should take into account the context, setting, and41

resources when evaluating which measure best suits their needs. For instance, some structured
professional judgment measures (e.g., SARA and PCL-R) may be more resource intensive thanmost actuarial measures making them inappropriate for certain circumstances (e.g., police
responders; also see Coid et al., 2009) . In addition, many of the measures considered hererequire extensive professional training and expertise of the evaluator (e.g., PCL-R). Finally,
consideration must be given to the characteristics of the population to be assessed (e.g., age,gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status) and the extent to which a measure has been crossvalidated in similar samples is required (Heilbrun,2009).When validation research and empiricalevidence is limited evaluators should be particularly cautious in the interpretation of results andshould make the limitations clearly evident to stakeholders in their risk assessment
documentation and communications. It is also important that measures are used as intended (e.g.
administering measures and conducting interviews, reviewing criminal records and clinicalfiles); therefore, if the setting and context does not lend itself to accessing the required
information and sufficient time to complete each recommended component of an assessment themeasure may not yield accurate information. In particular, assessors want to be clear about theoutcome of concern (verbal abuse, physical abuse, severe violence, stalking, femicide?) andknowledgeable about relevant base rates (Heilbrun, 2009).
This review is intended to provide both researchers and clinicians with a comprehensive
review of the state of the IPV risk assessment field; as such we were inclusive of studies by not
excluding published findings based on study quality but rather describing the limitations ofavailable research. Reflecting that objective and the heterogeneous nature of the researchavailable we have provided a narrative review and did not provide common effect sizes via a
meta-analysis. We also included only studies published in English from Westernized nations,published in peer-reviewed journals thereby limiting the generalizability of our conclusions.
Based on the available literature, we are also unable to provide guidance on the clinical relevanceand utility of these instruments with female perpetrators, male victims, and in same-sex
relationships due to the lack of studies using relevant populations. The field at present is limitedby the small number of studies that have addressed each instrument and due to diverse
methodological limitations. The extant literature lacks prospective, longitudinal studies, studies
comparing multiple instruments, studies that reflect the intended outcome and/or that utilize
multiple sources of data to code outcome criteria, and studies that code the measures in themanner intended/include all items, thereby making conclusions tentative. For instance manystudies of the SARA relied on file reviews in the absence of an interview. Also, the criterion
variables either did not match the intended use of the instrument (e.g. the Danger Assessment
was used to measure re-abuse) or relied on criminal records or self report, but rarely both. In
recognizing these limitations we hope to guide future research. For the same reason we did not
perform a meta analysis of the heterogeneous literature.
In conclusion, there is considerable room for further IPV risk assessment research. In
particular, studies examining the incremental validity of using IPV specific variables or measuresonce taking into account general risk predictors (incremental validity) , prospective studies, and42

rigorous designs comparing multiple measures in single studies and using relevant criterion
variables are required.
#16 Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts of intimate partner violence
Daniel J. Whitaker, Christopher M. Murphy, Christopher I. Eckhardt,
Amanda E. Hodges and Melissa Cowart
65 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol.4, Issue no.2 (2013)
In this review, we did not take a strict definition of primary prevention. Specifically,studies were included as primary prevention study if the intervention targeted IPV, and did notselect a sample of known victims or perpetrators. Studies included may have delivered
interventions universally to a population, and that population may have included some priorvictims and perpetrators. Or, the studies included may have targeted high risk, or “selected”
populations for intervention some of whom may have already been victims or perpetrators.
Electronic databases were searched for IPV prevention studies. Two reviewers identified
19 articles published between 1993 and 2012 that were included in this review. Studies included(1) contained one or more interventions targeting physical or sexual partner violence perpetrationor victimization, (2) used a experimental or quasi-experimental design study design that included
a comparison or control group, and (3) measured at least one outcome relevant to IPV including
behavior, knowledge, attitude, belief, or another related construct.
Of the 19 studies, 15 used experimental designs, the strongest design for inferringcausation. All but two studies tested a single intervention against a control group. One tested
two interventions against a control group, and another tested a short versus long version of thesame intervention. All studies used some form of a curriculum-based intervention to effect IPVoutcomes. Curriculum approaches as IPV prevention change strategies included: focusing on
IPV knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs from a feminist and/or cognitive behavioral perspective;
using social norms to change behavior; promoting help seeking and peer support; promoting thedevelopment of specific relationship skills; and, focusing on the legal and judicial aspects of
IPV. Several studies included important non-curriculum based activities (e.g., community
activities, a microloan program), but no studies were designed to examine the different effects ofcurriculum vs. non-curriculum based activities. About two thirds (n = 13) of the interventions
were conducted in school settings, and the rest were conducted in community settings. There waslarge variation in sample size with samples ranging from 37 to 2310 participants.
Of the 19 studies, 9 were determined to be methodologically strong in most aspects: useof randomized designs, acceptable retention rates, sufficient follow-up assessments, and use ofvalid measures of IPV behavior. Four of the studies were conducted in school settings, and fivewere conducted in non-school settings. Of the five school-based studies, only one foundunqualified positive results on IPV behavior. Over four years, the Safe Dates program wasshown to reduce IPV perpetration (psychological abuse, mild physical abuse, and sexual abuse)

43and victimization (physical IPV). The program was equally effective for boys and girls, for all
race/ethnicities included, and for teens who had experienced IPV and those who had not.
Of the five non-school based studies, each showed some positive effect on IPV
behaviors. The five studies included two community-based interventions with group curriculaand non-curriculum based activities (one set in Limpopo Kenya), two interventions that worked
with couples (one in groups, one one-on-one), and one family-based intervention in which
parents and teens discussed dating violence. Each of the five interventions found some reduction
IPV following the intervention.
This review found several programs that were effective in preventing IPV. Communitybased programs were particularly effective in this review. Although many research questions
remain regarding prevention programming, it is not too early to consider implementing some
programs broadly. Prevention activities have traditionally been underutilized compared toprograms for identified perpetrators and victims. Because prevention is generally cost-effective,
programming is badly needed to prevent IPV before it begins.
There are several areas of need for future work of IPV prevention studies. First, althoughseveral programs were found that affected IPV behavior, no studies were replicated. Second,
several of the effective programs included multiple components (curriculum plus community
activities) but no analyses were reported that determined which components accounted for the
positive study findings. Third, future research will need to examine whether IPV prevention canbe delivered with prevention programs that targeted other risk behaviors that emerge inadolescence such as risky sexual behavior, substance use, and peer violence. Last, if prevention
programs will be implemented broadly, implementation and dissemination research is needed tounderstand how best to implement those programs with fidelity to maintain program
effectiveness.
#17 The Effectiveness of Intervention Programs for Perpetrators andVictims of Intimate Partner Violence
Christopher I. Eckhardt, Christopher M. Murphy, Daniel J. Whitaker,
Joel Sprunger, Rita Dykstra, & Kim Woodard
188 pages. Full manuscript available in Partner Abuse Vol.4, Issue no.2 (2013)
The review involved a detailed summary of all studies published primarily since 1990
using randomized or quasi-experimental designs that compared an active intervention program toa relevant comparison condition. These studies included 20 studies investigating theeffectiveness of ‘traditional’ forms of batterer intervention programs (BIPs) aimed at perpetratorsof IPV, 10 studies that investigated the effectiveness of alternative formats of BIPs, 16 studies ofbrief intervention programs for IPV victim-survivors, and 15 studies of more extended
intervention programs for IPV victim-survivors.
Results indicated that interventions for IPV perpetrators showed mixed evidence ofeffectiveness regarding their ability to lower the risk of IPV, and available studies had many44

methodological flaws that produced biased findings affected by various design and interpretive
limitations. More recent investigations of novel programs with alternative content have shown
more promising results in reducing IPV likelihood, although caution is in order given the limited
scope of this research and challenges affecting whether these novel interventions can indeed bebroadly implemented in criminal justice settings. Among interventions for victim-survivors of
IPV, a range of therapeutic approaches have been shown to produce enhancements in emotional
functioning, with the strongest support for CBT approaches in reducing negative symptomaticeffects of IPV. Studies examining brief interventions for victim-survivors have reported
inconsistent effects. Several studies have found significant increases in safety behaviors, butenhanced use of community resources is often not found. Overall, it remains unclear whether
brief safety interventions produce longer-term reductions in IPV re-victimization. Among morestructured interventions for survivor-victims, supportive advocacy in community settings has
been shown to reduce the frequency of re-victimization relative to no-treatment controls,
although rates of re-victimization remain alarmingly high in these studies.
The results of this review suggest at least two important recommendations regarding
intervention programs for IPV perpetrators and victims. First, the accumulated findings suggestthat some intervention programs for IPV perpetrators and victims are effective at reducing the
likelihood of IPV and improving individuals’ quality of life. However, the quality of researchunderlying these findings is not of consistently high quality, the breadth of findings is quite
limited, and the strength of these effects varies considerably depending on the population
studied. Nevertheless, if one asks the question of whether there is evidence indicating whether
programs are indeed effective at preventing new episodes of violence and improving the lives ofsurvivor-victims, then the answer appears to be a somewhat qualified ‘yes.’ This affirmative
conclusion applies more directly to interventions for victim-survivors, whereas conclusions
about interventions for perpetrators are far more equivocal.
Second, there is little evidence to indicate the superiority of one type of intervention overanother. The available research suggests that a wide variety of interventions appear to reduce or
eliminate IPV among perpetrators and victims. Thus, there is no empirical justification foragencies, state organizations, judges, mental health professionals, or others involved in
improving the lives of those impacted by IPV to limit the type of services offered to clients, or to
restrict the theoretical and ideological underpinnings of such methods. For example, some of thestrongest IPV-preventive effects among BIPs were associated with alternative, non-traditional
interventions that focus on constructs such as readiness to change or motivational enhancement
methods. This suggests that practitioners and policymakers should consider and attempt to
implement a variety of different intervention methods for both perpetrators and victims in orderto reduce IPV.
The results of this review also indicate that the research base underlying this area of
inquiry is severely limited. We were able to identify only 30 studies of BIPs and 31 studies ofintervention for victim-survivors that met our inclusion criteria. This is a critically small numberof intervention studies for an area of such public health significance. A variety of important45

limitations were present among available studies. Most were conducted in the U.S., mostpresented the kinds of biased conclusions that follow from the use of non-randomized designs,
most had significant design implementation problems, and there were few attempts at replication.
Future researchers in this area would be wise to broaden the type of interventions underevaluation to extend beyond the typical and traditional intervention packages than currently
exist, and to examine whether specific components of interventions are associated with behavior
change. In addition, researchers should extend the types of outcomes assessed beyond measuresof recidivism, and to study a wider range of perpetrators and victims (e.g., studying female
perpetrators and/or male victims; examining treatment effectiveness in non-U.S. samples).

46

About the Authors
John R. Barner, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Social Work and Director of Practicum at Troy
University in Troy, Alabama. He received his Ph.D. in Social Work from the University ofGeorgia and a Masters of Social Work and undergraduate degree from the University of
Minnesota. His research focuses on the forensic and legal aspects of social work policy andpractice including the impact of jury instructions and judicial procedure on imposition of thedeath penalty, the theoretical study of crime and deviance in American society and the history,
and the prevalence and etiology of intimate partner violence. Additionally, Dr. Barner has
written, presented, and published across many topics pertinent to social work and social
psychology, including grief and loss issues, labor and social welfare policy, globalization,
immigration, and the sociology of popular culture.
Rebecca L. Brock, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Iowa. She earned herundergraduate degree in psychology from North Dakota State University and her M.A. and Ph.D.
in clinical psychology from the University of Iowa. Dr. Brock’s research is focused on the
etiology and treatment of depression and anxiety, the role of interpersonal processes in thedevelopment and maintenance of internalizing disorders, and factors impacting satisfaction andstability in intimate relationships. She has published dozens of articles in peer-reviewed journals,
and has received numerous awards for her research, including a Ruth L. Kirschstein National
Research Service Award from NIMH, the Steve Duck New Scholars Award from theInternational Association for Relationship Research, and the American Psychological
Association Dissertation Research Award. She has also served on the executive board andnumerous subcommittees for the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology (Division 12,
Section 3, of APA).
Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center in Eugene,
Oregon. Her Ph.D. is in Developmental Psychology, from the University of Oregon. Her
research focuses on antisocial and co-occurring behaviors across the early life span within adynamic developmental-contextual framework. Foci include explaining developmental
trajectories of such behaviors (e.g., crime, health-risking sexual behaviors, substance use),
including the dispositional, contextual, familial, peer and romantic partner influences on theiremergence, persistence, and desistance. One current study focuses on the transmission of thesebehaviors across three generations. A further focus is on understanding the formation andstability/instability of romantic relationships in early adulthood, and particularly on explaining
the development of aggression in such relationships. She is currently the Principal Investigatorof two studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One examines young at-risk
couples’ relationships, and the third study examines intergenerational influences on risk with aprospective three-generational design.

47Dr. Capaldi is currently on the editorial board of the Journal of Family Psychology, Child
Development, Journal of Marriage and Family and the Journal of Adolescence. She has served
on numerous grant review committees. She is the author of many journal articles and bookchapters. In 1998 she was awarded the Boyd McCandless Award for scientific achievement inearly career from American Psychological Association, Division 7. She is a member of a numberof professional societies and a regular participant at meeting symposia, as well as speaking at
NIH conferences. In October 2004, she was an invited speaker at the NIH State-of-the-Science
Conference on Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in
Adolescents. In December 2007 she was co-chair of the conference on Teen Dating Violence:
Developing a Research Agenda to Meet Practice Needs (NIH, NIJ, CDC), Arlington, VA.
Michelle Mohr Carney, Ph.D, Associate Professor in the School of Social Work and Directorof The Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at the University of Georgia, received the Ph.D.
from The Ohio State University in 1996, the MSSA from Case Western Reserve University in
1989, and the BSSW from The Ohio State University in 1988. Her primary research interestsand expertise are in the areas of intimate partner violence, batterer interventions and program
evaluation. She has conducted numerous evaluation studies primarily in the area of service
provision for male and female batterers. Dr. Carney co-edited the book Women Who Perpetrate
Relationship Violence: Moving beyond Political Correctness and has published numerous
journal articles and book chapters on issues related to female and male perpetrators. Her
publications address the need to better understand the prevalence and characteristics of intimate
partner abuse and to promote better treatment interventions through client-treatment matchingand developing researcher-agency partnerships. Dr. Carney teaches courses in nonprofit
management, advanced community practice and evaluation research each year, and is a memberof the Graduate Faculty.
Melissa Cowart received a B.A. in Sociology from Berry College in 2007. Upon graduating,
Melissa worked for the GA Department of Family and Children Services as a case manager in
the Investigations Unit. In this capacity, she met with families to address allegations of childabuse and neglect, including families in which intimate partner violence was an issue. In the Fallof 2010, Melissa began pursuing a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree at Georgia State
University. She joined the National SafeCare Training & Research Center at GSU as a project
coordinator in August 2011 and continues to work toward an MPH.
Patrick Davies, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Clinical and Social
Sciences in Psychology at the University of Rochester. Dr. Davies is broadly concerned with
understanding relationships between family processes, child coping and adaptation to stress, andchild psychological adjustment and maladjustment. He received his Ph.D. in 1995 and is anauthor of over 80 publications in the field of developmental psychology and psychopathology.
Dr. Davies has served on the editorial boards of several developmental and clinical psychology
48

journals and as an associate editor of Developmental Psychology and Development andPsychopathology. He is a recipient of the Boyd McCandless Early Career Award for Significant
Contributions to Developmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 7(Developmental) Award, the University of Rochester Georgen Award for DistinguishedAchievement and Artistry in Undergraduate Education, and the Reuben Hill Research andTheory Award from the National Council on Family Relations. His research is currently fundedby the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development andthe National Institute of Mental Health
Sarah L. Desmarais, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mental Health Law
and Policy and the Department of Community and Family Health at the University of South
Florida. Dr. Desmarais received her Bachelor of Arts (Honors) degree in Psychology from the
University of Guelph, followed by Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Forensic
Psychology from Simon Fraser University. She then completed a postdoctoral research
fellowship in the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia,
where she trained concurrently as a postdoctoral teaching fellow in the Department of
Psychology.
Dr. Desmarais’ program of research examines issues related to mental illness, substance use, andviolence in criminal justice and health care settings. She is currently focused on the development,
validation, and implementation of evidence-based practices for the prevention of adverse
outcomes among mentally disordered offenders and victims of partner violence. In 2008, Dr.
Desmarais received the Alice Wilson Award from the Royal Society of Canada and the
Postdoctoral Prize from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for her
research examining the effectiveness of partner violence interventions in improving healthoutcomes among pregnant women.
Dr. Desmarais is a trainer and co-author of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability(START; Webster et al., 2004, 2009). With her START co-authors, Dr. Desmarais has trained
mental health and legal professionals worldwide. She provides online consulting to researchers,
clinicians, and administrators who have implemented START in their services and is first authorof the START Instructors’ Guide and Workbook (Desmarais et al., 2007). Dr. Desmarais is also
actively engaged in community service, including serving on the Hillsborough County Domestic
Violence Fatality Review Committee and the Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County’sChild Welfare/Domestic Violence Policy Group’s Steering Committee.
Rita E. Dykstra, Ph.D. is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at the University of NebraskaLincoln. Dr. Dykstra received her BA from the Pennsylvania State University (2002) and both
her M.S. (2008) and Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Purdue University (2011). She
completed her pre-doctoral internship at the University of Mississippi Medical Center/Sonny
49

(G.V.) Montgomery VA Medical Center consortium. Dr. Dykstra’s research has focused oninvestigating risk factors for intimate partner violence, especially the role of trauma andposttraumatic stress disorder in the perpetration of violence.
Christopher Eckhardt, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Psychological Sciences at Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN. Dr. Eckhardt received his BA from the University of Michigan(1989) and his Ph.D. in Clinical/School Psychology from Hofstra University (1994). Prior tocoming to Purdue, he was on the faculties of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX andthe Univ. of North Carolina –Wilmington. Dr. Eckhardt’s research has investigated risk factors
for intimate partner violence as well as factors that may predict successful/unsuccessfultreatment outcomes among men assigned to partner violence abatement programs. His researchhas examined whether men who abuse their partners exhibit cognitive disturbances and intense
emotional states (such as anger arousal problems) during emotionally charged relationshipconflicts, including those that involve alcohol intoxication. A second line of research has
investigated the relation between readiness to change and outcomes of treatment programs forabusive offenders. Dr. Eckhardt has published more than 40 scientific articles and books/bookchapters on intimate partner violence, which has been supported by research grants from the
National Institute of Mental Health, the H.F. Guggenheim Foundation, Alcoholic Beverage
Medical Research Foundation, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, US
Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Esteban E. Esquivel-Santoveña, BSc is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Forensic andCriminological Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
He has a BSc in Psychology from the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México-UAEM, andhas worked as a research assistant at UAEM in a project (“Clinical Psychology of the Vital
Cycle”) investigating different health aspects related to individual and family life of users ofhealthcare services with Drs. Patricia Balcázar Nava and Gloria Margarita Gurrola before
undertaking his PhD under the supervision of Dr. Louise Dixon at the University of Birmingham.
His research has focused on how attitudes and other salient partner violence risk factors impact
on young dating relationships. Recently he has specifically investigated how certain mental
health correlates (such as depression, PTSD, psychological flooding, etc.) and other proximal
variables (attitudes about aggression, relationship adjustment, jealousy, etc.) relate to different
types of aggressive and/or controlling behavior in men and women (e.g. Johnson’s typology) in
dating relationships. Esteban believes that professionals working in prevention and treatment ofpartner violence can benefit from insights derived from empirically-tested typologicalapproaches to tailor prevention and treatments efforts targeting specific kinds of victims andperpetrators.
Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., received his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from the University ofRochester in 1965. He has been a member of the faculty at California State University, Long
50

Beach since 1965. He is current a full professor and teaches courses in the areas of ClinicalPsychology, Counseling, Family Therapy and Personality. He has published over 45 articles in
professional journals and has focused on such topics as friendship, meditation, malevictimization, and intrracial dating. His widely cited annotated bibliography, "References
examining assaults by women on their male partners" has been recently updated and published in
Sexuality & Culture.
Joel H. Garner, Ph.D, received his doctoral degree in political science from The George
Washington University. For the past 30 years, his primary research interests have been theeffectiveness of criminal justice responses to intimate partner violence, police use of force, racial
profiling, experimental designs, and alternative methods of research synthesis. He served as the
program manager for the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, Director of Research at
the U.S. Sentencing Commission and at the Joint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc. Dr. Garner iscurrently serving as Chief of Law Enforcement Statistics for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Ed Hilterman is a Sociologist , director of a small Consultancy specialized in applied research in
the justice sector in Barcelona, Spain and Consultant at the Open University in Barcelona, Spain.
Under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen, from Tilburg University, he iscurrently working on his PhD on risk assessment in juvenile offenders.
In both the Netherlands and in Spain he has worked in the area of risk assessment and risk
management. In the Netherlands he has worked as researcher in the TBS system and in Spain in
the juvenile justice system in Catalonia. Since 2008 he has had his own Consultancy inBarcelona.
He has specialized in risk assessment and has translated several risk assessment tools into Dutchand Spanish. In collaboration with Tonia Nicholls and Anders Tengström he also worked on thedevelopment of the Decision-making in Abusive Relationship Interview (DIARI), a structured
needs assessment tool for victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
Amanda E. Hodges completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology at Georgia State
University in 2009. Her research as an undergraduate focused on assessing the prevalence ofproblem gambling behaviors among youth and adult offenders in Georgia’s juvenile anddrug/DUI courts. In 2011, she earned a Master of Public Health degree from GSU where she
focused on prevention science. Her research integrated nursing and neuroscience to examine thehealth impact of sleep disorders. During Amanda’s tenure in graduate school, she worked as a
graduate assistant within the National SafeCare® Training and Research Center. Upon
graduation in 2011, she joined NSTRC as a research coordinator.
Hyoun K. Kim, Ph.D. is a research scientist at Oregon Social Learning Center. Dr. Kim
received her Ph.D. in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at the Ohio
State University in 1999. Her research interests center on the development of psychopathology –51

including depression, delinquency, drug use, health-risking sexual behavior, and intimate partner
violence – in adolescents and young adults from at-risk backgrounds. Dr. Kim’s work has
focused on understanding the developmental trajectories of these health-risk behaviors fromearly adolescence through young adulthood, with a strong focus on mediating effects of selfregulatory systems and social influence processes on the development of health-risking
behaviors. She has been working on multiple longitudinal studies on health-risk behaviors of atrisk adolescent populations, including two long-term longitudinal studies of at-risk young men
and their romantic partners (Oregon Youth Study and OYS-Couples Study), in which the effectsof romantic relationships on the developmental pathways of psychopathology have been
examined. She is an author on over 50 publications and has been serving on the editorial board of
the Journal of Marriage and Family for the past 2 years.
Naomi Knoble is a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at the University of Oregon. Ms.
Knoble earned a M.Ed. in Couples and Family Therapy from the University of Oregon in 2005.
She is currently a predoctoral research fellow (funded through NIMH) at the Child and Family
Center at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on risk and protective factors forviolence in family and romantic relationships.
Amie Langer, M.A. is a predoctoral researcher at the University of Iowa. She earned herundergraduate degree in psychology from Iowa State University and her M.A. in clinicalpsychology from the University of Iowa. Ms. Langer’s research is focused on developing andtesting empirically-supported interventions for emotional and behavioral dysregulation. With Dr.
Lawrence and Ms. Orengo-Aguayo over past three years, Ms. Langer has been involved indeveloping an empirically-based intervention based on third-wave behavior therapies such as
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) aiming to reduce violent behaviors among men
convicted of domestic assault.
Teri Lambert, M.A., is a member of the American Counselor’s Association and is currently the
Mental Health Specialist for the Family Violence Council and the Southwestern Judicial District
Court in Americus, Georgia. Ms. Lambert began her work in the field of violence against
women in 1999 as a volunteer advisory board member and president for the domestic violence
shelter in Yuma, Arizona. In 2001 she began working as the Domestic Violence Paralegal for
the Yuma County Attorney’s Office. She completed her Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justicefrom Northern Arizona University – Yuma Branch Campus in 2003. While working with theprosecutor’s office, Ms. Lambert coordinated a Dating/Domestic and Sexual ViolencePrevention Program for the local junior and senior high schools. She also provided training indomestic violence response to local law enforcement agencies. In 2008-2009, Ms. Lambert was
the Coordinator for the Arizona Western College/Northern Arizona University-Yuma BranchCampus Violence Prevention Program. She then worked as Executive Director of the Arizona
Sexual Assault Network. Ms. Lambert received her Master’s in Community Counseling from52

NAU-Yuma in 2011, completing her practicum and internship at Catholic Community Services(CCS) emphasizing her studies in trauma counseling. Ms. Lambert was then hired as a counselor
at CCS, counseling trauma victims and substance abuse clients. Through her experience, Ms.
Lambert has established herself as an expert in the area of domestic and sexual violence,
including abuse against Native American women for which she produced a training video. She
has spoken locally and nationally on domestic violence, addressing audiences including law
enforcement agents, advocates, prosecutors and educators.
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D., is a Psychology Professor at the University of South
Alabama. She obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and her
Master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Clinical Psychology from the University of Oregon. She
completed her clinical internship at the Palo Alto VA/Stanford Medical Center, and a two-year
NIMH funded fellowship in marital violence at SUNY-Stony Brook. Her research focuses ongender, intimate partner violence, and at-risk adolescents. She has published over 70 empirical
papers and book chapters on these topics in journals including Violence and Victims, Journal of
Family Violence, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Family Psychology, andPsychology of Women. For the past three years, she has been developing, implementing, anddisseminating data on a domestic violence prevention/relationship enhancement program she
designed called Building a Lasting Love. She has targeted the program toward high-risk pregnant
teens and adjudicated male youth.
Erika Lawrence, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Iowa. For almost two decades, she has been conducting basic and applied research
examining the nature, developmental course, predictors and consequences of intimate partner
violence. Her interests are broad and comprehensive: she is interested in (a) both low-level
aggression and battering violence, (b) in the context of aggression enacted by both men andwomen, (c) in the related trajectories and consequences of verbal, psychological/ emotional,
physical and sexual aggression, and (d) in the impact of violence on perpetrators, victims,
relationships, and children. Erika is in the process of developing a primary prevention program
targeting intimate partner violence in young adults, and is revising the standard Batterers
Education Program used across the state of Iowa.
Katie Watson MacDonell, M.A., completed her undergraduate degree in Psychology at the
University of Guelph with a minor in Criminal Justice and Public Policy. She went on tocomplete her Master’s degree in Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Since December 2007 she has worked as a research assistant with Dr. Miriam Ehrensaft on the‘Building Blocks: Teens and Young Adults Project’. Data from the first wave of this project
were utilized for her Master’s thesis, which explored the relationship between exposure to an
antisocial father figure and attitudes toward intimate partner violence in preteens followed up 10
years after enrollment in a childhood intervention to prevent conduct disorder. Presently, Ms.
53

Watson MacDonell works as a clinical interviewer on the Teens and Young Adults project aswell as completing manuscripts and conference presentations as part of Dr. Ehrensaft’s researchlab.
In 2009, after completing her Master’s degree, Ms. Watson MacDonell was hired as Dr. Cathy
Spatz Widom’s full-time research assistant, working on her longitudinal data set that explores thelong term effects of childhood maltreatment. Ms. Watson MacDonell has worked on a variety ofgrant applications, manuscripts and presentations, as well as having the opportunity to complete
her own research. She is currently working on a manuscript exploring resilience, based on 7
domains of functioning, across three assessments in middle adulthood utilizing Dr. Widom’s
sample. She recently presented this study at the American Society of Criminology in November
2010 and will submit the manuscript for publication this spring. Ms. Watson MacDonell recently
applied to go back to school to complete her PhD in Clinical Psychology.
Christopher D. Maxwell, Ph.D. is Associate Dean for Research in the College of Social
Science and Associate Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University(MSU), and he is Associate Research Scientist in the Inter-University Consortium for Politicaland Social Research at the University of Michigan. He holds bachelor's degrees in sociology,
criminal justice and psychology from Indiana University-Bloomington, and a master's degree
and Ph.D. in criminal justice from Rutgers University. Dr. Maxwell's research interests include
testing for the benefits and costs of sanctions and therapeutic treatments for spouse abusers, theimpacts of police and court services on victims of domestic violence, the epidemiology ofviolence against women by intimates, and the extent and correlates of sexual assault by andagainst adolescents. His current focus is assessing the extent to which intimate partner violence
offenders are prosecuted and whether more prosecution and sanctions lead to less subsequently
violence. He has published numerous articles in journals, including Criminology, Criminology
and Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
Adrianne McCullars, M.S. received a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the Universityof Alabama at Birmingham in 2008. After college, Ms. McCullars was employed as a
Psychologist Assistant for the UAB Department of Neurology Division of Neuropsychology. In
this position, Ms. McCullars was promoted to Program Coordinator of an NIH funded study
titled, Medical Decision-Making Capacity in Traumatic Brain Injury (RECLAIMED). Ms.
McCullars obtained her Master of Science degree in Applied Psychology from the University ofSouth Alabama in May 2012. During her graduate training, Ms. McCullars served as a research
assistant under the mentorship of Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Ms. McCullar’s research interests
include adjudicated juvenile youth, intimate partner violence, and suicide related behaviors(suicide ideation, suicide attempt, and non-suicidal self-harm). Ms. McCullars is currently adoctoral student in the Combined-Integrated Clinical Counseling Program at the University ofSouth Alabama.
54

Tiffany Misra, M.S. is a 4th year doctoral student in the Combined-Integrated ClinicalCounseling Program at the University of South Alabama and is expected to graduate in 2013.
Ms. Misra earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Georgia and her M.S. in
Applied Psychology from the University of South Alabama. Before pursuing graduate training,
Ms. Misra worked in the public health field predominantly with non-profit mental healthorganizations. While Ms. Misra has worked on research projects that include a variety of topics,
currently her specific research interests are in the areas of intimate partner violence, nonsuicidal
self-injurious behaviors, and issues concerning social justice. Ms. Misra has been conducting
research with Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling for 5 years. Ms and her Master’s Thesis investigatedthe perceptions of dating violence by comparing attributions of responsibility within the context
of victim-committed sexual versus emotional infidelity. For her dissertation, she is investigating
the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior among self-injurers, specificallyconcentrating on the characteristics of self-injury that may increase an individual’s acquired
capability for suicide.
Christopher Murphy, Ph.D. is Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of
Psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He received his B.A. in
Psychology at the University of New Hampshire and his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at Stony
Brook University. His research focuses on the efficacy of cognitive - behavioral and motivational
treatments for perpetrators of intimate partner abuse, the role of alcohol and drugs in partner
abuse, motivation to change abusive behavior, and psychological abuse in dating and marital
relationships. Dr. Murphy directs the New Behaviors Program for partner violent men at theDomestic Violence Center of Howard County, Maryland, where he is actively involved inclinical training and supervision. Dr. Murphy has over 50 publications, including the 2005 book,
Treating the Abusive Partner: An Individualized, Cognitive-Behavioral Approach (co-authoredwith Christopher Eckhardt).
Dr. Tonia Nicholls obtained a Ph.D. with a specialization in Law and Forensic Psychology from
Simon Fraser University in 2002. She is Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry,
University of British Columbia and Senior Research Fellow at the Forensic Psychiatric Services
Commission, BC Mental Health & Addiction Services. She currently holds operating grants
from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Her scholarly work earned her three "Brain Star" awards from the Institute of Neurosciences,Mental Health, and Addictions (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), the American
Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions, and theCanadian Psychological Association President's New Researcher Award. Dr. Nicholls’ research
examines the intersections of law and mental health related to the provision of services tomarginalized populations (homeless mentally ill, forensic patients, persons in conflict with thelaw). She is particularly interested in the assessment and treatment of violence and criminality
and the development and implementation of evidence-based practices that bridge the researchclinical practice chasm. Her publications have covered diverse topics including inpatient55

aggression in psychiatric settings, women in conflict with the law, psychopathy, the potential
contribution of protective factors to the violence risk assessment field, and intimate partner
abuse. She has been particularly active in knowledge exchange, publishing several manuals to
inform evidence-based practice and being actively engaged in large-scale implementations andevaluations including measures to inform: violence risk assessments (Short-Term Assessment of
Risk and Treatability (START), Webster, Martin, Brink, Nicholls, & Middleton, 2004; Webster,Martin, Brink, Nicholls, & Desmarais, 2009; START: Adolescent Version abbreviated manual,
Nicholls, Viljoen, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2010; START:AV full manual, Viljoen,
Nicholls, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, in prep), mental health screening in correctionalsettings (Jail Screening Assessment Tool, Nicholls, Roesch, Olley, Ogloff, & Hemphill, 2005)
and assessments and safety planning with women coping with or escaping intimate partner abuse(Decision-making In Abusive Relationships Interview, Nicholls, Hilterman, Tengstrom, 2010).
In 2007, she received a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Career Scholar award(2007-2013). She also presently holds a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigatorsalary award (2011-2016).
Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo, M.A., is a 3rd year doctoral student at the Clinical Psychology
Program at the University of Iowa. Ms. Orengo-Aguayo earned her B.A. in Psychology from the
University of Puerto Rico and her M.A. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Iowa.
Before pursuing graduate studies, Ms. Orengo-Aguayo was funded by NIMH Career
Opportunities in Undergraduate Research Program (COR) to conduct research on intimate
partner violence among Latina women and on relationship dynamics among low-income
minority couples. She has also been awarded the National Academy of Science Ford Fellowshipand the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to conduct research on
relationship dynamics and intimate partner violence among low-income Hispanic and black
couples. During the past three years, Ms. Orengo-Aguayo has been actively involved indeveloping an empirically-based intervention based on third-wave behavior therapies such as
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) aiming to reduce violent behaviors among men
convicted of domestic assault. Ms. Orengo-Aguayo is passionate about translating basic research
into interventions that can improve the quality of life of underserved populations and hopes tocontinue this work in the future.
Michelle M. Pritchard received her BSc in psychology from Portland State University inPortland, Oregon. Ms. Pritchard is currently completing a Masters in Public Health degree atSimon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. Her final Masters project is examining
Intimate Partner Violence risk assessment instruments from a public health perspective. She isalso a project coordinator with the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, BC Mental Healthand Addiction Services in Port Coquitlam, BC as well as in the Department of Psychiatry,
Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Kim A. Reeves is a doctoral student of Clinical Psychology with a specialization in Forensics at
Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Ms. Reeves received her BA in
56

Psychology with a minor in Criminal Justice from The College of New Jersey in Ewing, NJ. She
then earned her Masters of Arts in Forensic Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal
Justice. Ms. Reeves worked as the Research Coordinator at the Bellevue/NYU Program for
Survivors of Torture for one and a half years. During that time, she was part of the research team
who investigated the Expedited Removal and Asylum Seeking process under the mandate of theUnited States Commission on International Religious Freedom. She decided to continue with her
education and received her Masters of Arts in Clinical Psychology at SFU where she is now
pursing her Doctoral degree.
Ms. Reeves has been involved in a variety of research pertaining to torture, PTSD, and policy
both in the US and abroad. During her time at John Jay and now at SFU, Ms. Reeves has focusedon the study of risk assessment especially in the context of intimate partner violence andstalking. She has received several grants to support her research including being one of theinaugural winners of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Vanier
Canada Graduate Scholarship.
While studying at SFU, Ms. Reeves completed a practicum at the Vancouver Police Departmentin the Domestic Violence and Criminal Harassment Unit. She consulted with the police andhelped them implement risk assessments in their daily practice and assisted in developing
management plans for offenders and safety plans for victims. This work has informed her
research on risk assessment as she firmly believes in the scientist-practitioner model inpsychology.
Martin Rohling, Ph.D. received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of
Alabama. He is currently a full Professor of Psychology at the University of South Alabama andalso is the Director of Clinical Training for USA’s Clinical and Community Psychology Ph.D.
programs. Dr. Rohling is an expert in brain functioning and behavior. He is a renowned
neuropsychologist with numerous empirical publications. He contributed statistical expertise to
the current project.
Brenda Russell, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Penn State Berks. She
received her B.A. and M.A. in psychology from Central Connecticut State University and her
Ph.D. in psychology form Saint Louis University. Her scholarly and teaching interests include
psychology and law, perceptions of victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, homicide
defendants, and the social psychological and cognitive aspects of jury decision making. She isparticularly interested in how gender and sexual orientation play a role in evaluating defendants
in cases of domestic violence, rape, sexual coercion, bullying, and sexual harassment. Her
research on domestic violence can be seen in her book entitled Battered Woman Syndrome as a
Legal Defense: History, Effectiveness, and Implications. Dr. Russell also serves as consultant
and program evaluator for various federal and state educational, law enforcement, justice, andtreatment programs. Her teaching interests include introduction to psychology, social
57

psychology, psychology and the law (forensic psychology), research methods, social cognition,
program evaluation, careers in psychology, senior capstone, psychology of gender, and criminal
investigation.
Candice Selwyn, B.A. received her undergraduate degree in Psychology in 2010 from the
University of South Alabama, where she is currently a second year student pursuing a Master of
Science degree in Applied Psychology. Over the past three years, Candice has actively pursued
research topics associated with her interest in aggressive behaviors. Specifically, she has been
involved in research projects investigating issues such as intimate partner violence, psychopathy,
non-suicidal self harm, suicide proneness, and suicidal behaviors. She is currently in the processof applying for doctoral programs in both Clinical and Counseling Psychology and ultimately
aspires to obtain a career in academia.
Stan K. Shernock, Ph.D., is the Charles A. Dana Professor and chair of the Department ofJustice Studies and Sociology at Norwich University. He received his B.A. in criminology fromthe University of California (Berkeley), his M.A. in sociology from Indiana University, and his
Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Virginia. He has served as president of the Northeastern Association of Criminal Justice Sciences, as a member of different committees of theAmerican Society of Criminology and Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, as a consultant to
the National Institute of Justice, as an editorial board member of five journals of criminal justice,
and as book review editor of another. He has published numerous articles on policing topics, aswell as on other aspects of criminal justice and sociology.
Joann Wu Shortt, Ph.D., is a Research Scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center. She
received her Ph.D. from the University of Washington. Shortt investigates how family and peer
relationships including siblings and couples shape our development across the life span. Her
research focuses on emotion processes such as emotion regulation, physiological functioning,and parent socialization of children’s emotions. This work has involved observational
methodology to understand interactional processes and mechanisms at work in predicting
relationship outcomes, intimate partner violence, and child/adolescent/adult psychopathology.
Shortt has been a co-investigator on the Oregon Youth Study-Couples Study for over 10 years.
She is currently the Principal Investigator on a cross-site study developing an emotion-focusedparenting intervention for high-risk mothers to promote emotion regulation and emotioncoaching skills.
Penny Shtull, Ph.D. is an associate professor of criminal justice at Norwich University in
Vermont. She earned a Ph.D. and M.Phil. in Criminal Justice, as well as a M.A. in Forensic
Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, and a B.S.W. from
McGill University in Montreal.

58

In addition to her publications in police and criminological journals, Dr. Shtull has served as aconsultant for various organizations, state agencies and consulting firms including the Police
Foundation (Washington, D.C.); the New York City Police Department; the Vera Institute ofJustice (N.Y.); the Criminal Justice Research Center (N.Y.); the Vermont Center for Justice
Research; the Burlington Police Department (VT); the Vermont Department of Corrections; theChittenden Unit for Special Investigations (CUSI); the Vermont Criminal Justice Training
Council; the Vermont Children’s Alliance and the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)
Program; and Margolis, Healy and Associates. In addition, she has served on the Washington
County, Vermont Sexual Assault Review Team, the Vermont Department of Corrections
Reparative Probation Board, and the Educational Advisory Board at the Northwest State
Correctional Center. Professor Shtull is a Past President of the Northeastern Association of
Criminal Justice Sciences (NEACJS) and has served on its executive board in various capacities
since 1997. In June 2009, she was the recipient of the Northeastern Association of Criminal
Justice Sciences Association’s Founders Award in recognition of her service and significant andoutstanding contributions to the Association. Dr. Shtull is currently engaged in research that is
focused on a multidisciplinary team approach to the investigation and response to child sexual
abuse in VT
Michael A. Skibo earned his B.A. from Furman University in 2009 and is now a graduate
student of Developmental Psychology in the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in
Psychology at the University of Rochester. Presently, he is supervising a NINR-fundedlongitudinal study of mother-child relationships, attachment, and physiological regulation. His
research is concerned with the influence of family processes on children’s emotion regulationand physiological regulation. In particular, he is interested in relationships between parenting andchildren’s ability to self-regulate in the face of stress
Melissa Sturge-Apple, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical and Social
Sciences in Psychology at the University of Rochester. Dr. Sturge-Apple earned a M.Ed. from
Harvard University in the area of Risk and Prevention, and worked as a family counselor for five
years. After this, she returned to school and received her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology
from the University of Notre Dame and served as a post-doctoral fellow at the Mt. Hope Family
Center. Her research focuses on understanding family processes, child coping and adaptation tofamily contexts, and children’s socio-emotional adjustment. She is an author on over 25
publications and is a recipient of the Reuben Hill Research and Theory Award from the National
Council on Family Relations. Her research is currently funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Nursing
Research.
Joel G. Sprunger, B.A. is a graduate student in the doctoral Clinical Psychology program at
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. He received his B.A. in Psychology from Purdue
59University at the Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne campus. Joel’s researchinterests include the examination of risk factors for intimate partner violence in terms of theprocesses through which these factors impact the likelihood of future abusive events and how
this information may better inform treatment/prevention efforts.
Robin P. Telford, M.A., is a doctoral student in Public Health at the University of South Florida
in the Department of Community and Family Health. Her specific area of study is behavioral
health. She received her master’s degree in forensic psychology from Marymount University.
Her research interests include treatment of individuals in the criminal justice system and deliveryof mental health services, with a specific focus on individuals with serious mental illness,
especially schizophrenia spectrum disorders. She currently works as the project manager on a
grant designed to improve reentry services for justice-involved adults with a serious mental
illness in Miami-Dade County.
Carolyn West, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington,
where she teaches courses on Family Violence and Human Sexuality. She writes, trains,consults, and lectures internationally on interpersonal violence and sexual assault, with a special
focus on African American women. She has developed culturally sensitive domestic
violence/sexual assault training material for a variety of organizations, including the Supreme
Court of Ohio and City of Seattle Human Services Division. Dr. West frequently delivers
keynote addresses and workshops for State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault (California, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin). Dr. West has lectured
internationally and conducted workshops and presented papers at more than 100 conferences,including those of the American Psychological Association. She has given invited presentationsat universities around the country, including Harvard University, Howard University School of
Divinity, and Columbia University Law School. Dr. West also has given television, radio,
newspaper, and magazine interviews (Essence, Washington Post, National Public Radio). She
has served as an expert witness in domestic violence cases involving victim-defendants (women
who use violence in self-defense) and testified at Congressional Briefings in Washington, DC.
Dr. West has authored or co-authored more than 40 journal articles and book chapters. She is
editor/contributor of Violence in the Lives of Black Women: Battered, Black, and Blue which was
published by Haworth Press in 2002 (winner of the 2004 Carolyn Payton Early Career Award).
In recognition of her scholarship, she received the Outstanding Research Award in the Field ofDomestic Violence in the African American Community from the University of Minnesota’s
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (2000). In 2005, she washonored as the first holder of the Bartley Dobb Professorship for the Study and Prevention ofViolence. Dr. West also is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.

60

Zeev Winstok, Ph.D., an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Welfare & Health
Sciences and a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Society at the University of Haifa,
Israel, received a Ph.D. from the University of Haifa, Israel, followed by a post-doctoral
fellowship at the Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy, School of Social Policy andPractice, University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on a wide range of family violence,
including partner violence, children’s exposure to interparental violence, and parents’ use ofviolence against their children. During the past decade, Professor Winstok won prestigious
research grants, including a grant for a longitudinal study of the escalation of conflicts toviolence among partners from the Israel Scientific Foundation, published dozens of articles inrefereed journals in his field, such as Interpersonal Violence, Violence Against Women, andAggressive Behavior and presented his work at numerous international conferences in his field.
His book “Partner Violence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Conflict Escalation” is due forpublication by Springer in late 2012 as part of The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality.
Daniel J. Whitaker, Ph.D., received his doctorate in Psychology from the University of Georgia
in 1996. He worked as a research scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
from 1997 to 2007, and he was a Team Leader in the Division of Violence Prevention, leading ateam in the prevention of partner violence and child maltreatment. In 2008, Dr. Whitakerbecame a Professor of Public Health at Georgia State University and the Director of the National
SafeCare® Training and Research Center. Since then, his work has been funded by the Centers
for Disease Control, the Department of Justice, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and theAnnie E. Casey foundation. Dr. Whitaker has published two books over 50 manuscripts andbook chapters, including papers in the American Journal of Public Health, Child Maltreatment,
and Aggression and Violent Behavior. He is on the editorial board for the journal Child
Maltreatment and Partner Violence, and has served as the CDC advisor to the American Medical
Association’s National Advisory Committee on Violence and Abuse, and on the advisory board
for Healthy Families Georgia and the National Family Preservation Network.
Kim Woodard received her BA in 2011 from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
where she majored in Psychology as well as Gender and Women’s Studies, and also minored inSociology. Her undergraduate studies included internship placements at the American
Psychological Association and the Domestic Violence Center of Howard County, Maryland. Ms.
Woodard’s research interests focus on relationship functioning and intimate partner violence.
Project Supervising Editor
John Hamel, LCSW, has a Masters in Social Welfare from U.C.L.A., and has conducted
batterer intervention and parent programs in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1992. He is theauthor, editor or co-editor of several books on family violence, including Gender-Inclusive
Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse (Springer, 2005), Family Interventions in Domestic61

Violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment (Springer, 2007), and Intimate
Partner and Family Abuse: A Casebook of Gender Inclusive Therapy, published by Springer in2008. Mr. Hamel is Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed professional journal, Partner Abuse,
published quarterly by Springer Publishing. He regularly speaks at conferences on domestic
violence theory, research and practice, and has provided consultation and training to mental
health professionals, victim advocates and shelter workers, social service organizations, teachers,
attorneys, judges and law enforcement officers. He also provides case consultation and expert
witness testimony. Mr. Hamel can be contacted at johnmhamel@comcast.net, or
www.johnhamel.net

62